Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Leasehold Reform

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate. Before I begin, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on being instrumental in the establishment—and subsequently being elected chair—of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold reform.
The existence of the group demonstrates that many hon. Members recognise that the law is flawed—there is considerable agreement on the urgent need for reform. I should mention that I am a vice-chair of the group and that the Minister addressed its first business meeting—his presence was very welcome, as were his comments. I am sure that his response to this debate will be equally well received.
I have received a number of messages from parliamentary colleagues—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith)—who would have contributed to the discussion but cannot be here because of previously arranged constituency business; I am sure that they will be keen to read the Minister's comments.
The timing of the debate is appropriate, as the Minister plans to issue a consultation paper on leasehold reform later this year, which will be a welcome development for the million or so leaseholders in England and Wales. The law is different in my native Scotland, so I do not intend to touch on issues north of the border—in any event, I think that most Scots will have other things on their mind today.
I do not want the discussion to develop into a party political squabble. Conservative Members may be tired of Labour Members holding them responsible for all the evils that resulted from 18 years of Conservative rule, but it is widely recognised that the previous Government failed to appreciate the scale and nature of the problems that their legislation caused. The negative effects of the poorly drafted, dogma-driven leaseholder legislation were compounded by the Tory Government's failure to address the very real problems that they created through the Housing Acts 1980 and 1985.
There are two distinct elements of leaseholding: leaseholders who have bought their lease from private freeholders, and the ex-council tenants who exercised their right to buy, first under the 1980 Act and subsequently under the 1985 Act. Leaseholders' problems arose partly because of the gap between the desire for

home ownership and the reality of leaseholding. People may have invested considerable sums in their property; they understandably count themselves as owner-occupiers, although, in law, they are regarded as tenants. Many did not take account of the implications of the leases that they signed. They were trying to better themselves and to build for the future, for themselves and for their families, but now feel that things have not worked out that way.
There are serious problems with leasehold law as it applies to private leaseholders. The law is firmly weighted on the side of the freeholder, whereas the burden of the cost lies with the leaseholder. There is usually little that leaseholders can do, short of costly and often unsuccessful litigation. In Poplar and Canning Town, I have met constituents who live in a luxury development, which looks fabulous from the outside, but which is, for the leaseholders, a living nightmare—the landlord seems to regard the service charges as a type of income, and my constituents have complained that they feel bullied, intimidated and harassed by their freeholder, who controls security, the concierge system, car parking and all the other services.
I know that other hon. Members want to deal in more detail with the concerns of private leaseholders, but I shall concentrate on the right-to-buy leaseholders—people who bought their flats and houses from their local authorities. Problems are generally, but by no means exclusively, concentrated in London—where the bulk of the right-to-buy leaseholders are situated—particularly in high-rise blocks, which require substantial repairs.
I believe that Tower Hamlets has the second highest number of leaseholders in London, and the Tower Hamlets leaseholders association is the largest organised group of leaseholders in any borough in the country. Andrew Coles, the chair of the association, and his colleagues have done much to highlight the problems that right-to-buy leaseholders have experienced, bringing them to the attention of me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). We have done what we can to assist them.
Many problems arise from poorly drafted legislation. Others, however, are of a more ordinary political nature. Our political problems partly arise from the disastrous neighbourhood system devised by the Liberal Democrats in Tower Hamlets between 1986 and 1990. Different parts of the borough issued radically different leases, and there appear to have been some cases in which neighbourhoods mis-sold properties in the knowledge that buildings had structural faults. That has made the borough's task more difficult than that of other boroughs.
Leaseholders in my constituency justifiably feel frustrated at the manner in which they have been dealt with. Perhaps Tower Hamlets has not committed enough resources fully to grasp the nettle of sorting out what politicians and leaseholders alike acknowledge to be a mess. Of course, the reduction of local authority finances by the previous Government made service delivery more difficult, but Tower Hamlets must know that more resources need to be devoted to dealing with the problems.

Mr. Tim Yeo: On that point, was the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the revenue support grant


decision for Tower Hamlets last year? Did he vote in favour of it, and what will he do if it is not increased this year?

Mr. Fitzpatrick: The settlement that Tower Hamlets received from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions last year was the most generous in 20 years. It was very welcome, and I voted for it. We are making representations to ensure that areas of deprivation such as Tower Hamlets receive the support that they should from central Government. That support should be based on need, and I am confident that the Government will continue to address our difficulties.
In 1995, the Department of the Environment study, "Leaseholders and service charges in former local authority flats" found that more than half of right-to-buy leaseholders had complained about the level of charges and the standard of service that they were receiving. Many of my constituents thought that they were investing in their future, but they have found their savings being eaten away by high service charges. The previous Government's measures to limit right-to-buy leaseholders' liability were welcome as far as they went, but they were of limited value. We have reached the point at which a number of my constituents are prepared to give up their leases and return to renting from the council for fear of losing the roof over their heads. Leaseholders in my constituency want to hear the Minister's views on buy-back options and reinstatement to tenancies, as they feel that there is no coherent strategy at present.
I want to mention the plight of leaseholders who fall under estate renewal challenge fund schemes. Tower Hamlets is to be congratulated on the amount of money it has secured for regeneration purposes, and I commend the schemes. The most recent, and most ambitious to date, is a series of stand-alone housing companies—the housing and regeneration community action schemes, commonly known as HARCAs. Their pioneering work may become a model which will be widely copied across the United Kingdom.
However, the fact that those schemes are the first of their kind has led to unforeseen problems and real difficulties for leaseholders, who are denied a vote in the transfer process. Provision was made for an indicative ballot, but the results can be ignored. It may be useful to revisit sections 32 and 43 of the 1985 Act, which deal with disposal of land and the form of consent required for large-scale voluntary transfer. Leaseholders certainly feel that there should be a statutory requirement for a ballot, which is currently merely encouraged. I hope that that issue will be addressed in the consultation paper.
The Social Landlords Mandatory Reduction of Service Charges (England) Directions 1997 require social landlords to charge no more than £10,000 for the same property over any five-year period for repairs, maintenance or improvements where ERCF money is received. To many of my leaseholders, £10,000 is a huge sum. No one could have foreseen the prospect of ordinary working people being hit with bills of up to £10,000 because of the policy of regeneration of their estates to which the Government are committed in their attempts to deal with social exclusion.
Increased service charges resulting from ERCF works will not necessarily reflect an increase in the value of leasehold property. As the Department of the

Environment recognised in its 1995 report, "The resale of former council homes", right-to-buy purchasers experience difficulties in reselling. Where a buyer can be found, banks—and those increasingly rare animals, building societies; I am a member of the Nationwide—are often reluctant to lend money for a mortgage on such properties. I understand that that is known as red-lining, and that it often results in leaseholders being obliged to live elsewhere and to let their properties to recoup the cost of charges.
My view is that leaseholds have had their time. If they ever worked well, that time has long gone. I am sure that reform of the law will be welcome, but radical change is required, perhaps including the introduction of the much talked about commonhold. I ask the Minister whether he can publicly announce today that the Labour Government appreciate the scale of the problem and acknowledge that leasehold law as it relates to right-to-buy leaseholders has profound flaws. I do not ask him to pre-empt his consultation paper, but perhaps he can share its direction with us.
There are other problems about which my constituents have complained: rights to consultation, or lack of it; requests to be entitled to detailed accounting arrangements; the inadequate appeals procedures; and the absence of a clear definition of structural defects. All those relate to loopholes in the existing law. The refusal to allow local authorities to use receipts from sales to replace housing stock was another grave error.
I am confident that future legislation will improve the position of leaseholders in the UK, although the position in Scotland is different. I have no idea what leasehold legislation prevails in Brazil, but I am sure that the House will wish the Scottish team well in the opening fixture of the World cup this afternoon.
Tower Hamlets leaseholders association calculates that it is withholding about £3 million in service charges because of disputes with the local authority. This is not the famous 1922 rent strike, and I am certainly not George Lansbury, but it is a demonstration of how disaffected thousands of ordinary, decent, law-abiding citizens are in east London. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and I hope that we can deal with the problems that leaseholders experience.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on being lucky in the draw to secure such an interesting debate. He acknowledged that this issue crosses the party divide, and, like him, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on creating—rather, re-forming—the all-party group on leasehold reform, of which I am a member.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town mentioned the consultation document, as I, too, look forward to its publication. It has been a long time coming. I remember talking to the Minister not long after I returned to the House, when he gave a guesstimate of spring for its arrival. The hon. Gentleman said it will come later this year, but I have heard June mentioned. I am not sure when it will finally reach gestation.
During debates on my private Member's Bill on commonhold, the Minister said that a Bill on leasehold reform would be in the first Queen's speech of the next


Parliament. I have a copy of Hansard with me, and will be happy to show it to the Minister if he doubts that he said that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I have never made a commitment to legislation in the first Session of this Parliament. If the hon. Lady gives me the Hansard column reference, I will check that point and respond to it.

Mrs. Lait: It is with great pleasure that I give the Minister the Hansard reference. The quote is from 8 March 1996, when the hon. Gentleman said:
I have great pleasure in assuring him"—
that is Mr. Dudley Fishburn, who was then the hon. Member for Kensington—
that the Labour party will be only too pleased to introduce a comprehensive leasehold reform Bill in the next Queen's Speech."—[Official Report, 8 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 610.]
I look forward to welcoming the leasehold reform Bill whenever it is introduced, and I hope for the Minister's sake that it is introduced in this Parliament, but I have a horrible suspicion that it may not be.
Will the Minister explain why he has not introduced the commonhold Bill drafted by the Lord Chancellor's Department before the dissolution of the previous Parliament? That Bill was put out for consultation, which is one of the processes that we now try to follow with most major Bills. It would be interesting to know why that Bill has not been introduced and whether the Minister thinks that it contained any flaws.
I do not want to go over the issues again in great detail because those of us who are involved know them in enormous detail. There is agreement that we should move forward on commonhold. I said publicly long ago that leaseholding is an outmoded form of land tenure, but several issues need to be resolved. I hope that the Minister will make it clear in the consultation document whether his Government believe that there should be any element of compulsion in the change from leasehold to commonhold, whether there will be any element of retrospection in any change and how the Minister plans to treat the issue of marriage value. Many well-intentioned attempts at reform have foundered on that issue, because we have to recognise that freeholding is a form of property ownership.
Moving on to more practical elements, will the document cover those who are caught by what is acknowledged to be very tortuous and painful legislation such as the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987? I have constituents who are, unfortunately, caught by that Act and who are going through the usual tortures and agonies experienced by leaseholders when there are difficult freeholders.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town talked about leaseholders and social housing. The Minister will know the Broomleigh housing association well because I understand that he was its adviser when it bought Bromley council's housing. I follow in the footsteps of my predecessor, Piers Merchant, who was very active in trying to solve the leaseholders' problems. [Interruption.] I shall not pursue that intervention.
Broomleigh has told me that it would welcome the introduction of commonhold and, as a freeholder, it does not foresee any problems with that. It would want to take a share for each of its tenants in a block so that it would be an active member of the commonhold association.
Broomleigh is involved in an active programme of upgrading its properties, which is where problems arise. My predecessor used to have many constituents complaining to him about bills for renovations of up to and sometimes more than £20,000. I am glad to say that the complaints that I receive concern renovation bills of about £8,000. Even so, that is a huge sum for many people.
I agree with the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town that many of the people who bought leasehold did not receive the correct advice at the time. However, we must deal with the present situation. It would be helpful if the consultation paper included proposals for housing associations to be able to deal with leaseholders in a less legalistic manner. For example, while Broomleigh does its best to help by providing methods of paying bills over time and assistance with mortgage advice, it would be helpful if there were a relaxation in the amount of money that Broomleigh is able to use to fund the repairs so that it would be easier for leaseholders to pay it back.
The Association of Broomleigh Leaseholders was recently formed to deal with the troubles, and it is becoming very active. Broomleigh housing association has said that although, under the Housing act 1996, there are problems in recognising a leaseholders' association as a registered association because it does not fall into the definition of a residents association, it is very happy to work with the leaseholders to try to solve some of the problems. We need that flexibility built into any future development for social leaseholders so that housing associations can deal with them humanely.
Leaseholding in social blocks is still a way for people to gain a foothold on the property-owning ladder. In Bromley, people are still enfranchising at the rate of a couple of blocks a year, and I would not want to stop that. People genuinely want to be able to own their property. I hope that when we receive the consultation document and, in due course, the Bill, this becomes a cross-party issue on which we can all agree so that we allow as many people as possible to have access to property ownership.

Ms Karen Buck: I had not expected the debate to divide on gender lines, but I fear that, for several weeks, all debates will be divided between the gentlemen in the Chamber, who will manage to weave a football reference into every speech that they make, and the women, who will not.
However, my sense of sisterly solidarity with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) was somewhat diminished by her claims that the Government deserve criticism for failing to introduce proposals for leasehold reform after 13 months in government. The Conservative Government were unable, over two decades, to resolve that difficult problem and made at least three botched attempts to do so, leaving leaseholders deeply dissatisfied.

Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady might acknowledge that the Government are, perhaps, realising that there is no simple solution to the problem of leaseholding, and that it will


take time to find one. That is why I have some sympathy with the Minister. Although I was teasing him about his promise to bring in a leasehold reform Bill, I believe that he has realised that the problem is infinitely more complex than one thinks in opposition.

Ms Buck: The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on his success in securing this important debate. I echo his congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on his work for the all-party leasehold reform group, which has been tremendously successful and tapped into Members' recognition that this is a difficult problem.
In the two boroughs that my constituency covers, there are 24,000 leaseholders—one of the highest figures in the country—who are roughly evenly divided between private and social landlord leaseholders. I shall discuss both those problems.
For lessees of private and social landlords, the core problem is that the power relationship between the landlord and the lessee is fundamentally unbalanced. At best, the imbalance relates to information about costs and services and, at worst, with a minority of landlords, it descends into nothing less than extortion, bullying and fraud. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have people coming to my surgery with harrowing tales of their experiences with private landlords. Only last week, a gentleman who has a lease on a property in Edgware road brought several complaints to my attention. He wrote:
Life threatening faulty wiring has been extended and left hanging".
He added that lights on the staircase were not installed for many years,
as the wiring was never repaired or maintained.
The letter continues:
I persistently complained over the years, but to no avail Ö At no time were we furnished with estimates
for the cost of works, as required by law. He clearly thinks that the freeholder was
anxious to gain control of all five flats, doing so for their own financial gain.
Among his experiences of intimidation over the years, the upstairs flat
was rented to prostitutes, 24 hours a day. I had no lights or staircase and clients were tramping up and down the stairs all night long. I got no sleep! I felt they were doing their best to push me out.
Furthermore, in the mansion blocks in Maida Vale and St. John's Wood, which I represent, there are cases of work being left half completed for a decade, which not only blights the lives of the residents but means that they are in an almost impossible position if they want to sell and move on.
Hon. Members have addressed the policy issues surrounding leasehold reform. I support early action on the right to manage and on the introduction of commonhold. I also urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take a message from the debate to the Lord Chancellor to that effect, so that we can introduce proposals on commonhold as quickly as possible. I look forward to the publication of the consultation document.
Two areas of local authority responsibility should be addressed, and I hope for support from my hon. Friend the Minister. The case that I outlined is one in which local authorities have legal responsibilities. Some have taken a strong line against landlords who fail to provide proper summaries of cost and access to inspect service charge accounts. Brighton and Hove council has an excellent record and, to give credit where it is due, Westminster city council, part of whose area I represent, has a team that has done some, but not enough, good work with lessees in taking action against their landlords.
However, other boroughs appear to be less rigorous in using the enforcement powers available to them through the law. My colleagues who serve on the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea council have drawn to my attention the fact that only one landlord was prosecuted last year, despite property in the south of the borough being heavily skewed to lessees in mansion blocks. Westminster prosecuted 12 landlords. I congratulate my colleagues on bringing the issue to public attention.
Kensington and Chelsea council points out that it invests a considerable sum in advice and mediation services for private tenants and leaseholders; indeed, it is more generous than Westminster in that respect. Resources for mediation and advice, and a hard line on enforcement, are undoubtedly necessary. The mediation approach is less effective when local authorities are not sending out a signal that they are prepared to take tough enforcement action against landlords who abuse their relationship.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister promoted best practice, especially in the consultation document, and encouraged local authorities to take a firm line on enforcement. Given that legal powers are underused and that many lessees, especially in small blocks, do not have the expertise or the money to take legal action, or exhaust their resources in doing so, people need a powerful friend. Some local authorities are doing a wonderful job, but most have probably not invested resources in such work.
Council leaseholders have been mentioned, and it would be extraordinary if I did not draw attention to the acute problems experienced by Westminster council leaseholders, who bought from the council over the past 15 years. There are 6,500 council leaseholders in Westminster, many of whom bought flats in tower blocks, thereby creating a problem that is much more concentrated in London than in other parts of the country, because of the particular problems and costs of such properties. That was linked to the aggressive home ownership policies pursued in the late 1980s and the problems of gerrymandering, which have been brought to the House's attention.
Many people make it clear at my surgeries that they purchased their property in good faith, but with very poor and misleading advice, and that it was the worst decision they ever made. There are not a few instances over the past year of people who had bought a flat at a reasonable price losing their home—being made homeless—as a consequence of the crippling cost of service charges and major works bills.

Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend share the disgust of one of my constituents, who described the Conservatives' offer of the right to buy


as the right to die? She thinks that her husband's death was brought on by the stress, strain and unreasonable pressures placed on them by the scheme.

Ms Buck: I am sad to hear that story. Unfortunately, such experiences are mirrored in a number of other areas. I have constituency experience of terrible stories of people who have gone through breakdowns or attempted suicide as a consequence of the financial pressures placed on them by home ownership.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem in Westminster has been compounded by the difficulties that leaseholders face because of the inadequacy of the investigation procedures? There was an internal inquiry, which was a complete whitewash, following the rather more satisfactory internal audit report.
Does my hon. Friend also agree that part of the problem is that the ombudsman will not investigate any collective complaint on behalf of leaseholders generally, and that a problem with the district auditor's investigation is that dealing with the gerrymandering of the granting of leases and with failure to bill is taking many years? As a Westminster resident, I submitted objections several years ago. I have repeated those objections, and the district auditor has only just started to look into them.

Ms Buck: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I agree with every point that he made, and I shall touch on a couple of them later.
I bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister some of the bills that have been brought to my surgery recently. Three weeks ago, a lady from the Avenue Gardens estate in Queen's Park, who bought her flat in 1993, brought the estimate of her major works bill to me. The estimate is £43,000. I echo the comments of my hon. Friends: there is no conceivable way in which ordinary working people could meet such financial obligations. Most people would not have taken on leases if they had expected such bills to come through.
The impact on lessees of estate action and the estate renewal challenge fund has been mentioned. A resident of the Mozart estate, which is in an estate action programme, was given an estimate of works two years ago, when the next phase of the work was under way. He was told that he would be billed for
general works including landscaping and fencing".
The bill was expected to be about £3,000, but when the final estimate came through, the cost had risen to £30,000. Those "general works" included the construction of a new road.
Several problems are tied to that, the first of which is the general point that no council leaseholder, unless he is very lucky or wins the lottery, could possibly meet such financial demands. There are caps on the cost that can be recouped from lessees on estate action programmes, but, even so, the amounts are unreasonable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, the legacy of managerial incompetence and political abuse of the leaseholder situation going back over a decade has made it impossible for people to plan with security.
Another lady, who bought her flat on the Lilestone estate in Church street, expects to have to pay £8,000 for works on a property that cost her £19,000, although her

neighbours are escaping with a bill for a quarter of that sum. The reason is excessive delays in starting the major works, which have tipped her over the 10-year indemnity period, leaving her with full liability. The situation is further complicated by the fact that 37 different leases have been issued by the council over the past decade, which further weakens the position of individual leaseholders because they find it difficult to develop common strategies in response to the problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned the problem of the ombudsman. I particularly wanted to ask the Minister to address that. My colleagues and I have sought to refer a number of lessee cases to the local government ombudsman, but have been refused on the ground that the lessees have redress in law. We seriously doubt the feasibility of that in many cases and believe that justice is being denied to lessees as a consequence. I should be grateful if the Minister would examine that problem and find out whether anything can be done to ensure that lessees do have some redress.
The Minister has repeatedly demonstrated a sympathetic understanding of the plight of council leaseholders, and we look forward to seeing the specific measures that have been promised, but I also ask the Government to give sympathetic consideration to some specific policies that are being developed by the council, belatedly and in response to its mismanagement, including, in particular, the option of development on the Brinklow, Oversley and Polesworth blocks, or the BOP estate, which was at the heart of Westminster's leasehold mismanagement policy. That development would provide long-awaited redress and a solution for those lessees. I know that the proposed solution is imperfect, but the need is desperate, and I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the project.
Council lessees have been let down by Westminster council in particular. Other council lessees throughout the country have been victims of policies that were not thought out, with councils finding it extraordinarily difficult to develop the complex management processes that are necessary for them to undertake the job. Private leaseholders have waited decades for justice. I am pleased that, after only a year, we can very shortly expect a consultation paper which will begin to provide justice for people in that position.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate. I am glad that he and I are on the same side, supporting the same cause, although, this afternoon, like any self-respecting Torquay United supporter, I shall naturally be cheering on the team in yellow and blue.
Leasehold reform is a serious issue which affects thousands of people's lives throughout the country. It is estimated that there are nearly 1 million leasehold flats in Britain, a large proportion of which are in London and most of which are in urban areas. Many leaseholders have a satisfactory relationship with their freeholders. Works to properties are agreed in consultation, charges are fair and accounts are kept in good order—but, for many more, the experience of leaseholding is unpleasant and frustrating. Unscrupulous freeholders can condemn their lessees to a life of constant disputes over charges, building repairs and building alterations.
People may purchase a property for a large sum, in the belief that they will become an owner-occupier, when they have bought little more than a timeshare. A leaseholder may invest a significant sum in a property and the freeholder a fraction of that sum, but it is the freeholder who retains the real power. Rather than gaining the freedom and security of home ownership, leaseholders may end up becoming involved in costly court cases, or at risk of eviction for failing to pay inflated charges for services that transpire. Alternatively, leaseholders may find themselves with a well-managed but wasting asset. Refusal by the freeholder to extend a lease and refusal by a mortgagee to lend on leases that he considers to be too short trap leaseholders in a home that they no longer want, or force them to sell at a discounted price.
Leaseholders who are unfortunate enough to find themselves at the mercy of incompetent or criminal freeholders must feel greatly aggrieved. Those leaseholders' dream of home ownership ends in the knowledge that they have little. Endless Government endorsements of the benefits of a home-owning democracy must ring a little hollow.
In 1997, the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service Ltd. dealt with 10,000 inquiries from people who were dissatisfied with their freeholders. They were probably the tip of the iceberg. How many more people go straight to lawyers, sell their property and move on, leaving the problem to someone else, or just put up with the misery and cost because they do not know what else to do?
Despite the obvious failings of the current leasehold system and campaigns by newspapers such as the Evening Standard, which highlighted some of the worst cases in London, the Government have so far failed to act. The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was viewed by some people as a significant change to property law, which would end the tyranny of bad freeholders. At last, it seemed, leaseholders could become enfranchised or more easily extend their lease. It would tip the balance between leaseholder and landlord and create a more level playing field. It would give owner-occupiers the power, if they wished, to buy their freehold and to take control of their property. We are having this debate because the Act has failed. Under the Act, enfranchisement has proved complex and costly. Extending a lease, although more popular, is still a lengthy, difficult and costly business.
Earlier this year, the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association wrote to me saying that, although, in theory, most leaseholders have a right to extend their lease, in practice, there is so little confidence in the legislation that estate agents often refuse to take on the marketing of a flat unless the vendor extends the lease first. It also said that when people ask for advice on selling a lease that is too short to be mortgageable, it has little choice but to explain that there are only two options: the leaseholder can engage in a lengthy and time-consuming battle to extend the lease, or sell the property at a discount.
Provisions in the Housing Act 1996 and legislation dealing with leasehold valuation tribunals which was introduced last year attempted to strengthen leaseholders' hand, but they only tinkered with an unworkable structure. The Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate was reported as saying recently:

I believe the existing leasehold law in this country is fundamentally flawed and there is no question in my mind that the time has come for comprehensive reform.
In a written answer, the Minister for Local Government and Housing said that the Government were
considering the scope and practicability of possible new measures"—[Official Report, 20 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 4571]
to assist leaseholders. She also stated that the Government expected to make an announcement about their proposals and to invite comments from interested parties in the spring.
At the time, I assumed that the Government meant spring this year, but we are still waiting to hear the announcement and to see the proposals. The Under-Secretary has blamed the delay on the complexities of the issues and on the need to ensure that any future legislation really works—an aim which I am sure every hon. Member supports—but the continued delay means more misery for leaseholders and more opportunities for unscrupulous freeholders to line their pockets. The Government now hope to issue a consultation paper later this summer, but make no promise of when legislative changes can be brought before the House. Will the Minister please clarify the Government's timetable for bringing forward their proposals to reform this deeply inequitable situation?
Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should phase out the leasehold system as a matter of urgency. England and Wales are the only places in the western world where a leasehold system exists. It is archaic, unfair and more suited to feudal Britain than to cool Britannia. The Government should replace the leasehold system with one of commonhold, which would give occupants total control over the properties in which they live. Anything short of that will only replace one bureaucratic system with another. The Government must find the time and commitment to make leasehold reform a priority. The current system is a shambles and should have no place in a country that espouses the benefits of home ownership so forcefully.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: The history and traditions of this Palace of Westminster have evolved, and revolve, around a central conflict—a conflict that has continued down the centuries from Magna Carta until today, when we have a Government who propose to do away with the hereditary rights enjoyed by their lordships in another place. It is the struggle for power between privilege and the common people, and in that struggle, your office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of Madam Speaker, represent the claim of the common people—the claim of the many over the few.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker for allowing this Adjournment debate on leasehold reform, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on having submitted the proposal for the debate to Madam Speaker for her attention.
The fundamental reason why leasehold reform is necessary is that it confers on the freeholder, or landowner, exceptional and unwarranted privileges and powers. Those powers concentrate wealth in the hands of the few rather than the many—but that is not why they


are wrong. They are wrong because they fundamentally distort the proper relationship of power and investment, of equity and control, in a property.
Imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have just made the second largest investment of your life and bought a new car from the garage. It may have cost you £15,000 or £20,000, and as you drive away you are pleased with your purchase. Only one doubt lingers in the back of your mind—the fact that you bought the car under a 99-year leasehold scheme. But you comfort yourself that the car probably will not last that long anyway, and even if it did, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I would it were otherwise—probably would not. You therefore reassure yourself that the leasehold arrangement should bring no unforeseen problems with the car. After all, you do own it, do you not?
Now imagine that in six months' time, long before the car's first annual service is remotely due, the garage writes and tells you that it intends to put four new tyres on the car and respray the roof. "But," you protest, "It doesn't need it." "Well," says the garage, "Now we have given due regard to your views, which is all that the law obliges us to do, we will proceed with the work at a cost of £1,500." "But it's my car," you protest. "No; you merely have the right to drive around in the car for 99 years."
We would not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider that a sensible way of owning a car. Nor, I contend, is it a sensible way of owning a house or a flat. The value of a 999-year freehold interest on a property may be a matter of only a couple of hundred pounds on a property for which the leaseholder has paid £50,000 or more. Yet it is the freeholder who has the effective power and decides how a property is run and managed on a daily basis. I repeat, the proper relationship of power and investment—the greater the equity, the greater the control—has been distorted. The party with the least financial stake in the property has become the party with most control.
Adam Smith is not the political philosopher most frequently quoted by Labour Members, but he surely understood the inequities of the leasehold system when, in "The Wealth of Nations" he declared:
Landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed.
I shall now chronicle some of the ways in which landlords reap where they have not sown. Some of the ways are legal, some are illegal, but the reality for the leaseholder is the same: exploitation.
I am sure that all hon. Members wish to see more than the simple closing of the huge gaps in current legislation. What point would there be in making exploitation illegal if it continues unabated because the remedies of the law are so difficult for leaseholders to obtain? Radical reform of the legislation is overdue, but it must bring effective relief.
Let me tell the House about a new breed of landlord, which I call the ground rent grazers. Grazing animals require vast areas to feed on and they make up in bulk what they lack in quality. Simarc, Castle New Tower Holdings, Shenstone's and Estate and Management Ltd. are all ground rent grazers that have bought up literally hundreds of thousands of freehold interests, usually at auction in the north-west of England.
The freehold interests are sold for a few pounds each and, unlike in the south of England, most of the leasehold properties involved are houses rather than flats. The

ground rent grazers have little interest in the ground rents themselves, as they are usually a minimal annual sum of a few pounds. Unlike a service charge, however, a ground rent is due whether demanded or not, and on a house, unlike on a flat, the right of forfeiture can be pursued by the landlord for arrears of ground rent. For the sake of a £20 ground rent that is a day overdue, and has not even been demanded or invoiced, the ground rent grazer can start recovery proceedings, and on top of that £20 can charge a fee for the recovery costs incurred. That is what those companies want.
Let us take the case of Mr. Mitchell of Rugeley in Staffordshire. His ground rent of £20 was overdue, and although he paid promptly when reminded, his freeholder, Castle New Tower Holdings, is now demanding £698.78 for its time and trouble in sending him an overdue notice, and his home is under threat of forfeiture.
Mr. and Mrs. Leyland of Heysham in Lancashire have a ground rent of just a few pounds, but Simarc, their freeholder, discovered that they had built a small conservatory years ago, long before it purchased the freehold interest. Under the terms of the lease a consent should have been obtained from the freeholder, and Simarc is now demanding £493.37 for retrospective consent. That is legalised extortion.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: As well as the companies that my hon. Friend has mentioned, there is also the Compton Group and Helpfavour. Does he agree that when such companies send letters that sometimes make what appear to be offers, but that go way beyond their powers as defined in the original document, that can be extremely worrying for elderly people living alone? Should not those people see their Member of Parliament, a solicitor or the citizens advice bureau before responding to some of those offers, which are totally fictitious and are an attempt to extort money from them under false pretences?

Mr. Gardiner: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention pointing out how the freeholders are abusing their power and intimidating the leaseholders, who expect to be treated fairly and reasonably. Many people who find themselves in that situation have no idea what to do when they discover that money is owing, and they are bullied into paying up, which is what the companies intend.
I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the abolition of forfeiture. It is an outdated and unnecessary remedy. Other remedies are clearly available to freeholders, and it would be better to apply them.
The ground rent grazers have another trick. When they encounter resistance to their exorbitant demands, they have taken to approaching the mortgage lender behind the back of the leaseholder and, under threat of forfeiture, demanding that their costs are met. Sadly, many mortgage lenders simply pay up without even consulting their mortgagor, and add the sum to the balance of the outstanding loan. I say many mortgage companies—thankfully, that does not apply to all of them.
I pay singular tribute to Mr. John Driscoll, who works for a major mutual building society. He has investigated and chronicled abuses by freeholders and, with exceptional courage and in the face of much abuse, he has resisted their demands. He has brought such scams to the attention of his own building society—Britannia—and has


informed other building societies and financial institutions of them. As a result of his campaign, the ground rent grazers are going through a lean patch. Unfortunately, like all grazers, they tend simply to move to pastures new.
I should add that Britannia building society has asked me to say that as yet it has no formal policy in that area. None the less, it has cause to be immensely proud of its employee, who has shown great initiative, courage and tenacity.
If there is a ground rent grazer, there is also a service charge shark. That beast has a huge variety of scams. Capital works programmes are systematically over-specified by tame surveyors and then systematically under-performed by in-house or arm's-length contractors.
At my constituency surgery on Monday, I was approachewd by a leaseholder who showed me what even to my, by now, somewhat cynical eyes appeared an extraordinary variation of the capital works scam. She showed me the list of quotations provided by her landlord for roof repairs. Each was duly shown as so many thousand pounds plus value added tax. The quotation recommended by her landlord, however, was recommended not on the basis that the figure was lower or that VAT was included in the price shown, but because VAT would not be charged. Presumably, the work would be cash in hand. That quotation is being referred to the police.
The service charge sharks avail themselves of the right contained in the lease for freeholders to arrange insurance on the property. The practice of abuse is well established. Landlords set up off-the-shelf insurance broking companies, which arrange wholesale insurance with the insurance company and receive a commission for doing so. Then, as landlords, they charge a second fee for arranging insurance for their tenants with the broking company. The cost of the insurance to tenants is often hugely greater than that available to them as individuals on the open market, despite the bulk purchasing power of which the landlord has availed himself.
I am extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his Department's response earlier last week on the question of the reasonableness of service charges, in which the arguments that I made during the debate on my ten-minute Bill on 10 March were taken on board. They are to be enshrined in a statutory instrument.
Tenants have a limited time in which to respond to the reasonableness of capital works that are proposed. The landlord must inform tenants of the nature of the work to be done and provide copies of at least two tenders. Tenants then have only one month in which to comment.
Regulations cover how accounts for service charges must be presented. The 1987 amendment to the regulations states that there must be a fair summary and that it must include certain information, which is divided into three sections: costs paid in the period in respect of bills not presented in the period; costs paid during the period relating to bills presented in the period; and bills presented in the period but not paid in the period. A further stipulation states that funds still outstanding to tenants must be declared at the end of the period.
The landlord must produce the summary within six months of the financial period ending. Once the six-month period is at an end, the landlord has a further month to

produce the summary. Failure to do so is a criminal offence, and the local authority has the responsibility to prosecute.
Unfortunately, there are two major weaknesses with that aspect of the legislation. First, tenants can ask only for the latest year's accounts. If they have not asked for accounts before, they have no way of checking that their money was spent as their landlord claims. Secondly, experience suggests that giving local authorities the role of prosecuting corrupt landlords is simply not appropriate. They lack the necessary resources, knowledge, experience and sometimes the inclination to exercise their powers. Of course, there are exceptions—notably Brighton and Westminster. However, the local authority with the biggest concentration of leasehold flats—Kensington and Chelsea—is unable to provide any statistics in that area. When asked by Councillor Rima Horton whether the council had ever successfully prosecuted on the ground of non-provision of access to relevant accounts, the reply from the tenants' public relations officer was that that information was not available.
Despite the piecemeal attempts to protect tenants' rights and to legislate against unscrupulous landlords, the law has clearly failed. Landlords continue to misappropriate tenants' funds. They unjustly spend their money and abscond with it in the almost certain knowledge that they will not be prosecuted.
To illustrate the problem, I shall cite one final example given to me by Mr. Nigel Wilkins. He lives in a block of flats in south-west London managed by a firm of managing agents called Monkton and Co. of 23–24 Margaret street, London. Under sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Mr. Wilkins wrote to Monkton and Co. asking to inspect the set of accounts for the previous financial year and to see supporting documents. On his first visit, he was given a pile of invoices in no particular order, and took photocopies, for which he was charged the reasonable price of l0p a copy. Upon inspection, Mr. Wilkins wrote to Monkton and Co., saying that he did not believe that he had been shown all of the documentary evidence that supported its accounts for the given financial period. Monkton and Co. replied, agreeing that despite it being his clear legal right, he had not in fact seen all of the supporting evidence. The accountant had bank statements and cheque stubs that Mr. Wilkins had not seen. He was allowed to make a second visit.
Surprisingly, on his second visit, Mr. Wilkins was still unable to see all of the supporting evidence. Monkton and Co. said that it had lost the pay book for one of the accounts, and that the bank statements were held by the solicitors and would be made available if he would like to see them. On his third visit, Mr. Wilkins was still unable to see all of the supporting evidence. Invoices were not supported by bank statements, and where invoices and cheque stubs matched, receipts were not produced to guarantee that payment had gone where it was alleged to have gone.
Payments were also made before the period. Bank statements showed the period to have begun with cheque No. 61, but Mr. Wilkins was shown an invoice for £18,745.07 for a staged payment for replacement lifts which related to cheque No. 44. Also listed was a transfer and a bank statement for an alleged payment of


£56,000 to the lift company, but Monkton and Co. was unable to produce any supporting evidence that the money had gone where it was intended to go.
Prior to the visits of Mr. Wilkins, a major programme of capital works had begun. Alan Ward Architects drew up the original specification and employed Mr. Geoffrey Tagg, whom tenants were informed was a member of the Institute of Building, to conduct the survey. A programme of works was decided on, based on Mr. Tagg's survey.
Mr. Wilkins was curious because a member of the Institute of Building should now be calling himself a member of the Chartered Institute of Building, which it had become on receiving a royal charter. On investigation with a member of the Chartered Institute of Building, Mr. Wilkins discovered that Mr. Tagg was a total fraud and was lying about his credentials. The institute failed to prosecute, but obtained a written assurance from Mr. Tagg that he would not claim to be a member in future.
Other hon. Members want to speak in the debate. I could chronicle many more instances, but instead I will provide my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with information so that he can pursue them.

Mr. Alan Clark: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I was not in attendance at the beginning of the debate, I was watching it simultaneously while, rather unsatisfactorily, attempting to conclude a long-standing appointment in my office. I have, therefore, seen the earlier stages of the debate out of the corner of my eye, so to speak.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on getting the time to ventilate this highly important subject, which is of great importance to those of us with many leasehold properties in our constituencies. I also express my general accord with certain aspects of the speech of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), which I watched from my office. I do not know whether it is in order to refer to watching the currency of a debate from one's desk, but as you have allowed me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the House will accept my apologies for not being in attendance for the whole debate.
There is no doubt that serious abuses are being visited on tenants in a range of different contexts. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has cited some of them, many of which are horrific. Every hon. Member will have had tenants coming to their surgeries telling them stories that arouse their indignation, but about which they can do very little because there is no redress available. The hon. Member for Brent, North gave a shocking example of someone claiming false credentials and using the label that attaches to that to help the landlord, or whoever is trying to get possession of the property, to give them extra prestige and status. That is a form of intimidation. Every example that has been cited in the debate has been replete with intimidation against which we, as Members of Parliament, regardless of party, should be able to defend our constituents.
Before turning to the consultative paper, I want to follow an analogy that the hon. Member for Brent, North took up. It was a vivid and compelling example of someone buying a car, which he drove around, confident in the knowledge that it was his property. However, because of the small print in the lease, he found himself with a bill for respraying and new tyres, which the car did not need, and there was nothing he could do about it.
What about the obverse of the argument? Let us suppose that a car owner, who has bought his car, decides to rent it to a neighbour to do the school run, or whatever, for a small sum. Perhaps he is a member of the services and is being stationed abroad for a while, so he sets up proper arrangements and insurance. Let us assume that the neighbour pays the hiring fee and all goes well for a while, but he then allows his teenage children to drive the car. It may be bashed around; perhaps it disappears and then reappears; or, parking tickets and fines may accumulate. At that point, the car owner may decide that he wants the arrangement to end and to have his car back. But however hard he tries, and whatever devices he uses, he finds that he cannot repossess his own property.
That happens all too often—in many cases to people at the bottom of the range. I know that owning a second home is thought by the Labour party to be a disreputable form of material possession, but sometimes people invest in a second home, which they let, but then they cannot get the tenants out. Tenants may stop paying rent or sublet the property and pocket the money. The original saver, whose house it is, has little redress. I know that there are legal measures that can be taken, but the law grinds along and people find it practically impossible to repossess their property. It is still frightfully difficult for ordinary, humble people to seek redress. They do not have the resources of major landlords to use intimidation, small print, lawyers, surveyors, architects and general leverage against their tenants.
There is another category of people who desperately need to recover their own tiny property—it could be a house, flat, or even a couple of rooms or the basement of their own house—but cannot do so.

Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) knows that the spokesmen on the two Front Benches have only 15 minutes to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): There seems to be some unawareness on the part of right hon. and hon. Members that the debate is time-limited. If it is to have any value, Front-Bench spokesmen must make a contribution.

Mr. Clark: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for raising the matter.
The document being prepared by the Under-Secretary of State should consider the need for a total overhaul of leasing arrangements. The guiding principle should be that tenants who generally conform to the terms of their lease, who behave decently, pay their rent and look after their properties, should not be subject to the sort of victimisation of which we have heard. However, it should be much easier for owners to recover their property and rapidly to evict tenants who abuse their terms.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar on securing the debate, despite his reluctance to approach the issue in the bipartisan spirit for which I had hoped, and which the subject deserves.
The issue concerns many thousands of people. I declare an interest as the leaseholder of a flat not far from the House of Commons—a leaseholder who gained rights under legislation passed by the previous Parliament, and which rights might be further affected by the outcome of the consultation process on which the Government are embarking.
The hon. Member for Poplar concentrated on the position of leaseholders who had acquired their leases through the right-to-buy scheme. He correctly identified the rather eccentric approach of Liberal Democrat councillors in Tower Hamlets.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: My constituents in Canning Town may be offended if I do not advise the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that my constituency is known as Poplar and Canning Town.

Mr. Yeo: I am glad that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) had the opportunity of putting that on the record.
I was referring to the rather eccentric approach adopted by the Liberal Democrats when they controlled Tower Hamlets. I was interested to note that the problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town arose primarily from the landlord—the local authority—confirming that the difficulties in such matters are by no means confined to the private sector, although clearly they extend to the private sector.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on her excellent contribution. She spoke with much authority and expertise on the subject, as illustrated by the quotation she dug up from the Minister when he was in opposition two years ago. She referred to the slipping timetable for the consultation paper. There is something of a competition in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to see which papers can be put back the longest. I am trying to help the Minister by saying that the integrated transport strategy is taking even longer than this matter. I am emphasising that we do not want to be churlish, but are prepared to be patient.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: No, I must give the Minister time to respond.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham confirmed that we in the Opposition recognise that abuses still occur and that further reforms are still needed.
The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) listed some of the reforms facing leaseholders who exercised their right to buy. I was not sure whether a trace of the old Labour opposition to the right to buy was lurking somewhere underneath the surface of her remarks.

Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, given all the abuses outlined at Westminster city council,

the Conservative party has signally failed to condemn the way in which that council abused the position of leaseholders who exercised their right to buy and the council's designated sales scheme?

Mr. Yeo: As a resident in the Westminster city council area, I have voted for Conservative councillors in each of the four elections in which I have been resident. I note that this year, the council gained seats from the Labour party, which was a resounding vote of confidence by the voters in Westminster in support of the Conservative council that has managed its affairs in an outstanding fashion.
To return to the subject of the debate, I agree that some buyers have proceeded with the purchase of their leases without fully foreseeing the costs that might subsequently arise. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) drew attention to some examples of continued abuses by freeholders. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) was able to contribute to the debate; he drew attention to a slightly separate, but nevertheless important, point—landlords have rights that can be abused by ruthless tenants. Undoubtedly, in the long term, that operates against the prospective tenants' interests because it means that other landlords will be reluctant to make their property available.
The Opposition, when in government, adopted two broad principles on leasehold reform. First, we believed that leaseholders must be properly protected against the risk of incompetence and exploitation by unscrupulous freeholders. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) acknowledged the fact that many freeholders adopt a perfectly responsible attitude and respect the position of their leaseholders. However, we recognised the fact that abuses were occurring, which is why legislation was introduced in the previous Parliament.
Service, repair and renovation charges—perhaps I should say overcharges—are the obvious areas of possible malpractice. For that reason, we gave leaseholders several new rights. The basis on which we operated was to try to reflect the balance of interest between the leaseholder and the freeholder. Where leaseholders' interests were clearly more important, greater rights should attach to their position.
Secondly, we believed that, in any rights granted to the leaseholder, we must recognise the fact that the freeholder had a legitimate interest in such matters. That principle is easier to state in general than to translate into a simple financial formula, but it is important and should be recognised in any further changes that are made.
The Opposition are prepared to be constructive and we look forward to learning more about the Government's thinking. During our term of office, we set up the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service with public money. It has been helpful in identifying some of the difficulties that arise in current legislation, not least the excessive complexity of the process that faces leaseholders hoping to exercise their enfranchisement rights. The impenetrability of much of the detail of calculating figures, such as marriage values, is enough to deter anyone from even embarking on the process. Other problems, such as those of eligibility, also arise.
We are ready to consider what the Government have to say. I hope that the Minister can share with the House a little of his thinking today, and we recognise the fact that the leaseholders are continuing to experience abuses.

Dr. Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that, in 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) raised all the matters that have been referred to in this debate, and your party in government promised that all the problems would be corrected and that commonhold would be looked at. You lost the election in 1997.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Yeo: Some progress was made after 1991. Legislation that addressed some of the issues was enacted in 1993, but I realise that further reforms might be needed. That is why I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
I conclude by joining other hon. Members in welcoming the work of the all-party group on this matter, which has a valuable contribution to make. We are prepared to be constructive in responding to the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on his success in securing this debate and providing the opportunity for us to focus on this most important issue. I shall not be able to respond properly to all the concerns that have been raised this morning because of the shortage of time, but I assure the House that the Government are well aware of them and committed to comprehensive reform.
There are over 1 million leaseholders in England and Wales. Although they may be legally regarded as tenants, most of them would consider themselves to be owner-occupiers, having invested substantial sums in their homes. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, too often, leaseholders do not have the security and the degree of control over their homes that owner-occupiers normally expect to enjoy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) admirably said, it often comes as a great shock to people who think that they have bought their homes to discover that they simply do not have the rights and control that they expect.
The key to the problem is that the balance of control between landlords and leaseholders is unfair. In most cases, it bears no relation to the respective shares of the equity in a building. In many blocks of flats, the value of the leasehold interests can amount to £1 million or more, but a landlord who has acquired the freehold, for perhaps a few thousand pounds, can exercise total control over its management. With some leasehold houses outside London on very long leases, the value of the freehold can be a minute proportion of the total value. However, the landlord often has rights to exercise considerable control over the leaseholder—for example, permission may be required for alterations, extensions and the like. Landlords might insist on a fee for giving that permission.

They might also insist on a particular insurer, from whom they often receive lucrative commissions. That unfair balance of control has resulted in a variety of problems for residential leaseholders in recent years.
Although many landlords are good managers, there is an all too significant minority whose management styles range from the incompetent to the criminal, with all the attendant misery which the leaseholders have to endure. Some are absent or neglectful, so that essential work remains undone and the buildings deteriorate. Others are lazy, keeping on contractors or agents for year after year without testing the market, so that the leaseholders who pay for those services do not get value for money. The more unscrupulous charge for work that has not been done, undertake work that is unnecessary, or charge inflated prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North cited many examples of the activities of people whom he graphically described as ground rent grazers or service charge sharks. The out-and-out criminals misappropriate service charges and sinking funds.
The problem is not confined to difficulties with the management of buildings. At the start of a lease the cost of a leasehold property can be comparable to a freehold one, but the leaseholder acquires a wasting asset. As the time remaining on the lease gets shorter, it becomes more difficult to sell. In many parts of the country, mortgagees will not lend on leases that have less than 60 years remaining.
There are, in theory, a number of safeguards for leaseholders, but it can be difficult and expensive for them to exercise the rights they have. Unscrupulous landlords can often exploit such difficulties and intimidate leaseholders. I have no doubt that existing leasehold law is fundamentally flawed. I have said so on several occasions, and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has quoted me saying such. I confirm my view that the current arrangement is flawed and that the time has come for comprehensive reform.
I know that some hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and for Torbay, have expressed concern about the time taken to produce detailed proposals. I fully appreciate the concern of leaseholders for early action. I assure leaseholders that their concerns have not been forgotten. However, the subject is very complex. There is a history of legislation on the hoof that has not always worked./
The previous Government had good intentions when they introduced legislation in 1985, 1987, 1993 and 1996. However, I suspect that not even Opposition Members would claim that those measures were as effective as they would have liked. They contained problems and were often ill thought out, because they were prepared in a hurry. Both the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 have proved to be seriously deficient. Therefore, we must ensure that we get it right this time. We do not want to create new anomalies or difficulties to replace the current problems.
We plan to consult on proposals later this year. The consultation paper will spell out the range of options and the Government's proposals. On some matters, we shall put forward proposals; on others, we shall put forward options to deal with the enormous range of subjects. The hon. Member for Beckenham asked specifically


about marriage values. That will be covered in the consultation paper, and other technical issues will be considered.
We will legislate as soon as we can when we have assessed the results of our consultation. However, I am sure that all hon. Members will appreciate that there is considerable pressure on parliamentary time, with a large number of other important measures pending.
I know that the House would like to hear details of the scope of our reforms, but I regret that shortage of time, plus the fact that we are still working up the proposals, means that I can make no specific commitments this morning. Our overall objective is to provide leaseholders with the opportunity to reap the full benefits of owner-occupation and, individually or collectively, to have control over the way in which their homes are managed.
After many false dawns, we intend to create a new framework that works and gives leaseholders the protection that they deserve. In conclusion, I should like to thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. They have graphically highlighted, from their own constituency experience, many of the serious problems in the current arrangements that justify the comprehensive reform approach to which the Government are committed.

Preventive Health Care

11 am

Dr. Peter Brand: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of preventive health care and home insulation. People might wonder why I want to discuss home insulation in June, but the purpose of the debate is to take the crisis out of winter. Each winter, many people suffer from illness and even premature death because of drops in temperature—much more so in this country than in, say, Scandinavian countries or even Siberia.
I am pleased that a Minister from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will respond to the debate. However, I am disappointed that the Minister for Public Health is not gracing the Benches this morning. The Government's public health statement was full of warm words, and there is an opportunity this morning for them to make a commitment to warm homes; that would do much more to help people than the leaflets, advisory papers and so on that are made available to keep people warm.
Many initiatives have been taken by local health authorities, often working with local authorities. Such schemes are commendable, but they are just drops in the ocean. It has been estimated that about 8 million households in the United Kingdom suffer from fuel poverty. People cannot afford to heat their homes properly, which means that about 10 million people shiver unnecessarily in the winter. That is a matter for the individuals concerned, who should be our priority, and it is also amazingly wasteful of energy resources, which are finite not only in this country, but elsewhere in the world.
There have been commendable initiatives. The home energy efficiency scheme was a good start. Unfortunately, its funding has been pegged.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Cut.

Dr. Brand: Cut, in real terms.
The regulations have been changed, so that people can no longer use the schemes to improve the insulation that their properties so desperately need. Homes need to be fitted with materials and appliances that stop energy loss and provide sufficient heating. I come across too many homes where people cannot afford—or believe that they cannot afford because of the uncertainty of fuel payments—to use the heating that is installed. They rely instead on paraffin heaters and gas-bottled heaters, with all the accompanying danger that goes with such appliances.
A proper scheme for home insulation and proper heating would save money in the long run. It would cut costs, not only for the national health service, but for the Department of Social Security. We rightly pay much lip service to keeping people in their own homes, which is where they want to be. We must make sure that their homes are fit for them and, unfortunately, we are failing to do that. The debate is supported strongly by several organisations, such as the Association for the Conservation of Energy, the Child Poverty Action Group, Friends of the Earth, Help the Aged, the National Housing Federation, the National Right to Fuel Campaign, the National Energy Association and Unison. Those groups have banded together to emphasise the multidisciplinary


nature of the problems of cold homes. It is a health problem and also an environmental problem. It is a problem for the most vulnerable members of our society—the very old and the very young.
The Government have an opportunity to do something dramatically useful. The new deal correctly identified opportunities when people who have been unemployed or young people who have not found employment can work in environment task forces. It is important that those task forces learn from the experience of the home energy efficiency scheme and that they are resourced properly to carry out the work that we all know needs to be done. It is also important that the change in the rules for the home energy efficiency scheme is reversed, so that people can return to homes where only minimal work has been done.
Each winter, we have heated debates—I am sorry, that is the wrong phrase; we have concerned debates about the effects of cold weather on our constituents. It is interesting that at least four of the long list of private Members' Bills relate directly to that issue, such as the Energy Efficiency Bill which is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). There is also the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill and the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill. I am proud to be a Member of the House of Commons where such an issue is so important. Many of us are very concerned about it.
As I said, the Government have an opportunity to take action. We must ensure that materials are made available and, if they have to be paid for by people who can afford them, let us exempt such materials from value added tax. It is nonsense to charge a tax on materials that stop us using finite fuel resources. During the next 15 years, there should be a proper programme of action to insulate the 1.5 million homes that need to be insulated. The new deal programme and environment task forces must work together with HEES and, if we can get that package together, the Government can show that they are truly committed to public health.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on introducing such an important debate. The issue has a great deal of cross-party support and the list of private Members' Bills to which my hon. Friend referred clearly shows that. The matter combines social poverty, health care and environmental concern, about which I speak for my party. It draws attention to the fact that, if we are to have a society that is environmentally sustainable, it will also be socially and economically sustainable. The environment is not isolated in that sense; it links up with other issues.
It is extraordinary that as many as 8 million people in the United Kingdom are still suffering from fuel poverty. It affects some families more than others; single-parent families are particularly affected. Almost half of Britain's 1.5 million lone parents, let alone the 2.3 million children for whom they care, are on incomes of less than £100 a week. That often leads to cold homes. One in five lone parents report dampness; one in five lone parents have no central heating.
It is not just a personal issue of being cold in the home. It costs the Government and the NHS, in particular, vast sums. At present, the Secretary of State for Health is

wrestling with the monster of increasing waiting lists. This is not easy to tackle, but those hon. Members who care to visit hospitals will be told that they are overwhelmed in winter with patients who are cold at home and who are therefore suffering the associated health problems.
It is estimated that the NHS wastes £1 billion a year on extra hospital admissions—let alone the knock-on impact of increasing waiting lists. Government figures show that, every winter, between 30,000 and 60,000 people die prematurely as a result of the cold. We might think that that is inevitable. Of course, when it is cold, wet or damp, people suffer increased health problems.
We might think that would be true anywhere in the world, but statistics from other countries show that they do not have the same level of problems. Of course, they have an increase in ill health during the winter, but not on the same scale as us. For instance, Sweden suffers a 14 per cent. increase in deaths in winter; in Norway, it is 10 per cent.; and, in Germany, 12 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it is 31 per cent. That is a great worry.
Tens of thousands of people should not die prematurely because they cannot keep themselves warm at home. I have already mentioned the environmental impact of the energy that is wasted through the roofs of those who are fruitlessly attempting to warm their homes. The unnecessary burning of fossil fuels costs money, and it also harms the environment.
Several systems are in place to tackle the problem, but they are not adequate. The cold weather payments scheme suffers not least because it is based on statistics rather than the reality of how cold people are at home; it takes no account of wind chill. We all know that a biting wind makes us feel far more cold than the ambient temperature about which we hear on the television news. That problem needs to be tackled. A private Member's Bill on the subject has been tabled. I hope that the Government will accept the case for taking account of wind chill.
The home energy efficiency scheme is brilliant in principle, but it is underfunded and suffers in the way in which it is administered. In particular, only one corrective measure is allowed per house. That leads to a waste of resources. A team enters a property to assess what needs to be done to insulate the home and then carries out the work. It seems nonsensical that, if the team lays insulation in the roof, it cannot cover the cracks around the doors and windows; if it does the cracks around the doors and windows, it cannot insulate the roof; and, in either case, it cannot lag the water tank.
Once a team has started work, it makes sense for it to do a comprehensive job—obviously within limited funding—and to do a range of work, rather than only one job. The irony is that, although the funding is limited, in those properties that need a mix of work to be done the money available cannot be spent because no more than one piece of work can be done. It is not necessarily a question of limited finance; it is merely one of bureaucracy.
Worst of all, the work of the Energy Saving Trust remains massively limited by the gas regulator's block on a levy being raised to carry out that work. The Government urgently need to undertake to change that through legislation. A utility regulation Bill should be introduced before too long; it could reverse that block and put a clear obligation on the regulators to take account not only of price but of environmental and health issues.
The previous Government, when setting up the Energy Saving Trust, promised a programme amounting to as much as £1 billion a year. They secured the Treasury's acceptance that the levy would not count as Government spending. The Conservative Government did the necessary background work, but they failed to deliver by not ensuring that the money was made available and by not overcoming the problems caused by the gas regulator. As yet, we have seen no progress on the matter from the Labour Government.
I hope that the Minister will say not only that the Government are aware of the problem, but that they intend to overcome it. The industry has the potential to invest vastly more money than has been put into home energy insulation. It should particularly target the poorest groups, who need it most.
VAT is charged on energy-saving materials. It is a great disappointment that the Government have not felt able to carry through what the Labour party said before the general election, although some Government schemes—we do not yet know which—will be exempted. All schemes should be exempted. Although the Government claim that European Union rules prevent that from happening, I note that at least one other European country has not found itself so restrained, but has already implemented such a policy.
The Government frequently refer to the new deal, and the environment programme within the new deal, as an opportunity to carry forward home energy insulation. Indeed, when questioned on the matter, the Prime Minister and other Ministers spoke of a massive programme of home energy insulation. I have spoken in detail with those administering the new deal, I have met the head of the agency involved, and I have detailed statistics.
I shall not bore the House with those statistics, but they amount to a few programmes being signed for home energy insulation under the new deal, which involves a small number of people. The programmes are handicapped above all by the fact that there is no funding available for the extra material costs, other than the small amount allowed for those participating in a new deal programme. It makes no sense to do that, unless a great deal more material is made available. Indeed, it is most likely to result in different people carrying out the same old schemes, rather than more people carrying out many more schemes.
There is plenty of room for Government action. From all that the Government have said, I believe that their heart is in the right place, as do many Labour Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who will shortly seek to speak, has been an outstanding campaigner on the matter before and since the election. I am sure that she will reinforce many of the points that I have made. I hope to hear a strong and robust statement from the Minister supporting what we have said and showing that the Government will take action at the earliest possible moment.
This afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will introduce the Preventative Health Care and Home Insulation Bill. It has cross-party support, and I hope that it will be taken up in the next Session of Parliament—by

a member of any party—and that it receives Government time. It would require health authorities to assess their role in getting people warmer homes, and how to carry through a programme of preventive health care to prevent people from having to go to hospital.
Several local health authorities have already done that on a trial basis. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority has spent £300,000 insulating the homes of people with asthmatic children. That has led to a significant and dramatic reduction in the incidence of severe asthma attacks, as a result of which children have not had to take time off school, and have not had to go to hospital or receive so much treatment. That sort of preventive health care, rather than the traditional role of health authorities insulating homes or even simply identifying problems, has a lot going for it. I hope that the Government will take a positive attitude to a Bill that commands cross-party support in the House and has huge support among the relevant organisations.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I warmly welcome the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). I also welcome the Preventative Health Care and Home Insulation Bill referred to by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). It certainly has the backing of the campaign for warm homes. Indeed, we discussed it at recent meetings and hoped that it would come to the attention of the House. I welcome this early opportunity to debate the matter. It is certainly necessary to engage all public agencies and private businesses. I pay tribute to the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which supports us all in our work. As has already been mentioned, the matter enjoys cross-party support, as evidenced by the Bills that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight read out, including my Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill.
In the fight against fuel poverty, the Government have an enormous task, which I think is recognised by all hon. Members present, but we must put that message across to others. Mention has been made of 8 million households—hence the 15-year programme envisaged in my Bill, to tackle that problem by measures for 500,000 houses during each year of the programme. We have examined both what needs to be put in place to achieve that and the programmes that were developed under previous Governments.
Our recent estimates suggest that about half the resources required for the purposes of my Bill are already available and dedicated to such work. The challenge is to ensure that we get every penny of value out of such programmes, as well as identifying and dedicating new resources to the fight. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), has attacked the problem with great passion and focus in the Government's early months.
The initiative to engage and focus health authorities and trusts, which is the subject of this debate, is most welcome, because the size of the challenge is truly daunting. We have mentioned the 8 million households that are thought to have to spend 10 per cent. of their income to achieve adequate warmth. However, we should also bear in mind other figures, such as the 1.5 million


people who live in severe poverty and who would have to spend 20 to 30 per cent. of their disposable household income to achieve adequate warmth, and the 1 million people in extreme poverty who would have to spend more than 30 per cent. to do so.
I invite hon. Members to consider what that would mean in terms of our disposable incomes, and to imagine the effect that would have even on us, were we to be presented with a bill for £3,000—if it were to be 10 per cent. of disposable income, or thereabouts; hon. Members' circumstances vary. Imagine a bill for £7,000 to £8,500, which would reflect 20 to 30 per cent. of expenditure from disposable income.
That is enough to cause a sharp intake of breath. I suggest that it might increase hon. Members' blood pressures significantly. The incidence of coronary heart attacks might rise suddenly—we do not want to promote by-elections, so I sincerely hope that that will not happen. However, it could drive some hon. Members into deep depression; everybody's reaction is different. However, that is happening for real to many of our constituents who are in far more straitened circumstances and have far less disposable income remaining after paying their fuel bills. In the part of the country from which the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and I come, water bills add to the pain of that experience.
The relationship between ill health and inadequate heating has been known for a long time. When I worked for Age Concern Scotland in the 1970s, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) was one of the first people to publish a study on hypothermia and excess deaths in winter. When I was involved in organising conferences across the country, working with colleagues in Age Concern in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on the manifesto on the place of the retired and elderly in modern society—more than 20 years ago—a paper by my hon. Friend was developed. Sadly, although some progress has been made in the intervening years, the issue is not taken seriously enough. We are about to engage on a conference with a similar theme, "The Debate for the Millennium", with much progress still to be made.
In the 1970s, Jack Benny, the comedian who was then only in his 80s—he lived to be 100—said that age was a case of mind over matter: if people don't mind, it doesn't matter. I used to use that a great deal in the talks that I gave for Age Concern. However, what must be added to that is, "as long as you have your health," because health is probably the key issue that makes for a happy and fulfilling old age. A key factor in maintaining that health, and in relieving ill health, is warmth, with the relief of fuel poverty and the promotion of energy efficiency.
Engaging health authorities and agencies is an idea that has been mooted for a number of years, but actions speak louder than words. It is good to hear of an increasing number of places where practical projects are being developed. Mention has been made of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority; I pay tribute to what it is doing. Initiatives are also being developed in Birmingham, Doncaster, Northampton, Eastleigh, Nottingham and Shropshire.
This morning, I asked the local energy advice centre in Plymouth how its work was going and whether it was engaging in such activities. It informed me that, yesterday,

it spoke to about 20 health care professionals in Plymouth, outlining the services that local energy advice centres offer.
I am sure that hon. Members recognise, as I do, the great service that more than 30 such energy advice centres provide throughout the country. Health authorities can help, working jointly with local energy advice centres. I understand that the energy advice centre in Solent has a programme working closely with its health authority on such issues.
I am reminded of a constituent, for whom I recently sought help from the energy advice centre in Plymouth, an 80-year-old lady who had inherited a rather dilapidated property, with all the usual accompanying energy efficiency problems. She made a plea to me for help. She was going out during the winter looking for wood to burn in a fire to augment her heating. When the energy advice centre visited her, it found that her property had a standard assessment procedure rating of only 1. I am glad that it can work with her. Another organisation that contributes a great deal working with health authorities as we envisage is Care and Repair. It will work with my constituent to try to deal with her heating problems to ensure that her next winter is more comfortable and, I hope, more healthy for her.
Hon. Members might expect me to be slightly more effusive in acknowledging what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and other Ministers have already done. We have taken the issue of fuel poverty seriously. We have cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent., which is worth £18 a year to an average family. We have introduced special winter fuel supplements for pensioners this year and next, which of course is worth more to the poorest and to people who struggle to pay fuel bills. We should not underestimate the capital receipts initiative, which channels more money into housing investment. Much more work is in hand. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to remind us of what is in the pipeline, emerging from the consultative document "Our Healthier Nation" and the Green Paper on utilities regulation, which has been mentioned.
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for initiating the debate and for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I look forward, as I am sure he does, to working with the Under-Secretary and her team throughout this Parliament to ensure that we make significant progress.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) corrected himself when he said that every winter in this place there is a heated debate about insulation of people's homes and deaths. He need not have done so, because there is such a heated debate. I have been in the House for 15 winters and questions have been tabled on a regular basis, especially from colleagues who represent Scottish constituencies. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is noted for campaigning for proper recognition of the colder climes that people in her part of the country experience. My colleagues in Wales have done the same. The winter issue has arisen every year I have been here, because that is what constituents and news, radio and television reports tell us is important. We know that people die in this country because they are cold.
My constituency is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who introduced the debate. One of the great benefits of this Parliament is that we have a sprinkling of medical doctors which we did not have in the previous Parliament. They have brought with them practical experience of their surgeries and their hospital and public health backgrounds. My hon. Friend made it clear that we must get our public health priorities right—he has made that point to me at more meetings than I wish to remember. He represents what seems to me to be a relatively affluent constituency off the south coast of England.

Dr. Brand: rose—

Mr. Hughes: I was being careful to say that it seems to me to be relatively affluent. That is my perception from one of the most deprived inner-city constituencies. No doubt my hon. Friend is about to say that rural and coastal areas of Britain have as many problems, including those of public health, as areas that are identified as centres of regional or national deprivation.

Dr. Brand: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to put it on record that the Isle of Wight has a gross domestic product of 64. The European average is 100. We have the lowest male wages in the country and the highest unemployment on the south coast. Only 3 per cent. of the population are higher-rate income tax payers. We have real problems and I am certainly aware of the problems of fuel poverty.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and his predecessor used to make similar points. My former hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, Mr. Bellotti, and all my hon. Friends who represent southern seats, which are perceived as being relatively affluent, have also made similar points. When I was canvassing in the Christchurch by-election I met elderly couples who were complaining about the issue. I put the matter in that context because I know that one of the paradoxes of my constituency—I represent more council tenants than any other English Member—is that people spend a great deal on heating their homes. However, most of that heat goes out the window and through the doors.
The hon. Member for Sutton made the point very well. The bills that some people run up are phenomenal and they get into terrible financial predicaments. Their fuel supplies are eventually cut off in spite of the protections in the system and their children suffer. Those people experience terrible stress and mental health problems, and families can break down. I am sure that the hon. Lady has the same undercurrents in her constituency. The alternative, especially for single or elderly people who are afraid of the cost, is not to turn on the heating. They sit in their homes doing—if I may say so—the Edwina Currie act of putting on a woolly hat and another blanket. That may be fine for a couple of hours, but it is not fine through the night and into the morning.
The issue is real. I am glad that we are debating it in June, and I share the views expressed. I think that the Government want to address the issue. I was with the

Minister the other day when she came to my constituency to launch the showroom of an environmentally sustainable building suppliers. It was so good that, when I do the bit of building work that I have to do on my house, I intend to go back there. However, it may not be as cheap as other supplier. If we are to have environmentally sustainable buildings, let us have environmentally sustainable results, with good public health.
There are good practices. Like most hon. Members who have been in the House for a while, I get invited—I think every year—by the neighbourhood energy action group to visit one of its activities in a constituent's home during Neighbourhood Energy Action Week. I have done that regularly and have seen that the suggestions make a great difference. Last year, I watched a simple process of insulation in which relatively cheap strips were put around windows and doors as draught excluder. Even those of us who are privileged enough to be in fairly good circumstances really notice a draughty place in the winter.
This is a good debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has done us a service by introducing it. I am glad that there is such consensus. I should like to flag up a couple of the health aspects associated with the issue, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said that I have an interest. We hope to combine our concerns with those of other colleagues who have put the issue on the agenda.
Before I do that, however, I want to make a specific objection. I did not think that I would have to make it without the presence of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). By blocking the Bill promoted by our hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), the right hon. Gentleman is doing the House and many old people no service. That Bill concerns mortgage valuation and energy efficiency.
I have looked at the list of Bills to be debated on 3 July. To do service to the business on that day, we would have to sit for about year because of the number of private Members' Bills tabled, which includes the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Sutton—the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill. Those are not silly Bills that people are introducing for party political purposes; they all have cross-party support and wide backing outside the House. I hope that, in protecting the interests of Back Benchers, we will not allow them to abuse the interests of a huge number of our constituents and citizens when we are trying to improve their health and welfare.
My Bill, which I will present this afternoon—the Preventative Health Care and Home Insulation Bill—adds to the Bill that my former hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who is now Baroness Maddock, got through the House as a result of the private Members' ballot in the previous Parliament. I have entered the private Members' ballot for 15 years and have never got near the top 20. She managed to promote two Bills in her four or five years in the House. Life is not fair, even for Members of Parliament.

Dr. Brand: Especially for Members.

Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friend says, especially for Members.
My Bill would do for health authorities what my former hon. Friend did for local authorities. It would require health authorities to include in their annual reports best


practice and what they could do to improve matters. They would have to state the benefits and practicality of possible measures. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a preventive health care scheme to improve the health of people by tackling the problems that cause ill health. It would set out how a health authority, working with the local authority, should proceed.
Six matters are specified which have health consequences. We are always reading and hearing about health outputs not inputs—it is not what is spent, but what is purchased that counts. That is true. We need to reduce the risk of hypothermia and the number of people who suffer from it. That is an output. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight explained that in much colder Scandinavian countries hardly anyone dies prematurely in winter; in our country, which is much warmer, people die prematurely all the time. That is unacceptable. I know that the Minister would agree and I hope that we will have made progress by the end of this Administration.
We need to deal with circulation problems, which have a huge effect on people; stress and mental health problems; cold-related illnesses, such as bronchitic and asthmatic conditions; and hospital admissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight knows the reality as well as I do. I often visit Guy's hospital and see people who regularly go in and out of it. They are discharged to places that are not good for their health. That is unacceptable. I am not an expert on the demand for general practitioners' services, but my hon. Friend could no doubt produce an assessment of how we could reduce the demand on surgeries.
There obviously has to be consultation. A local health authority would consult the community health body and local authority with the intention of working with them. That could be done. It is consistent—I am sure that the Minister and even her absent colleague the Minister for Public Health would accept this—with the Government's public health strategy to ensure that the health of the nation is improved.
I want to make a couple of points that have telling conclusions. First, an assessment was conducted by Dr. Brenda Boardman of Oxford university—it was not conducted by my party and it has no party political base—which showed that the NHS spends £1 billion a year from its budget of £45 billion on additional admissions, visits and prescriptions because appropriate work is not being carried out. That significant sum, which constitutes 2 per cent. of the health service budget, could be saved and redeployed to support policies for which we argue all the time.
Secondly, the Department of Health could promulgate good practice among health authorities and share it around. It could pick up an initiative in one region and convey it to another region. The hon. Member for Sutton rightly said that the saving to households that resulted from the Government's cut in VAT is already about £20 a year, which is welcome. A similar point is made in the briefing that I received—and I still remember last year's briefing. My understanding is that, if a home insulation programme began with the lowest-income households—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has more knowledge of this matter than I do—one could reduce a household's cash expenditure by about £85 a year, although the same costs were involved. Taking appropriate action is relatively cheap.
The Minister may be in a better position than I am to comment on the fact that plenty of good practice is around—many health authorities, for example, have good practice. The hon. Member for Sutton discussed the general position in Nottinghamshire. I gather that Newark and Sherwood district council, which covers a relatively small area, estimated that home insulation could save the local health authority £4 million a year, which is a valuable saving.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has first-hand experience of a pilot programme that his county's health authority established in the Isles of Scilly, which was targeted at children with asthma. I do not have first-hand experience of it, although I am interested in it. No one knows exactly how asthma is brought on, but we know which factors appear to trigger it. Quite honestly, the figures are amazing. The programme examined a group of the islands' children, who suffered from asthma, before and after their homes were insulated. Those independent statistics show that the number of days off school that those children took reduced from 4.1 days over the study period to less than one day—0.6 of a day.
I was privileged the other day to spend our most recent half-term week in the Isles of Scilly, which I visited for the first time. It is a beautiful place, but in winter some of the cottages on those islands would not be the warmest places on earth if they were not heated. The same is true of coastal areas, and we must make progress in that regard.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on health authorities, and I shall read the Bill's details carefully. Does he agree that one of the problems affecting local energy conservation programmes is often the fact that key stakeholding organisations have not worked in partnership with one another? Will not health improvement programmes, which are a key reform in the Government's White Papers and Green Papers, help to encourage partnership between local authorities and to spread good practice, of which he gave isolated examples?

Mr. Hughes: In the interest of straight talking, my answer to those questions is yes. My local authority has a different priority, although it has a health action zone, which the Government designated and which I welcome. I hope that I shall carry the hon. Gentleman with me on this issue. I believe that in our near political lifetimes the logic of running together health and social services will become overwhelming, and that we shall wonder why it was not done previously. That will also save much management money. If we take that step, the experts on the ground and the people's democratically elected representatives will be able to plan together.
I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman's views are, but I hope that I will carry him with me and persuade the Government that health and local social services authorities need to work together to plan services. They should also involve the same people, as they do in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who sits on the Select Committee on Health, studied the situation in Northern Ireland, and I believe that the Committee will produce its report before the summer.
We are getting used to the fact that people can go to their doctors to get a prescription not for drugs but for something else—they might be sent to a local health


centre or fitness centre, or they might be advised to carry out insulation. The Minister for Public Health described the situation clearly earlier this year. One scheme allocated money to general practitioners, which enabled them to write a prescription that allowed people to cash in a receipt to pay for insulation. That is lateral, intelligent thinking and it helps to meet people's needs. Instead of giving a patient a drug to cure his bronchitis, the cause of the problem is being faced.
We have an opportunity to get our act together and to establish a coalition, and we thank all the people who have encouraged us, including our constituents. I hope that we can serve them well and that between us—whichever Bill is lucky enough to make progress—we might persuade the Minister and her colleagues to persuade the Government to make such legislation one of the goodies in the next Queen's Speech, which I am sure still contains some spaces. We cannot consider constitutional legislation and nothing else during the coming year. The Bill is a prime contender for one of those spaces, and, if the Minister wants us to join a small lobbying group, we shall be happy to oblige her.

Mr. David Drew: I begin with an apology for not being here at the start of this debate—I had an urgent meeting at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which overran slightly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on what he is trying to achieve, and should like to add some brief points on this important subject.
I want to continue the debate about fuel poverty which was initiated some months ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who highlighted the fact that people's inability to heat their homes is an important aspect of poverty. In that debate I spoke about home improvement agencies.
I should declare an interest: for the past 10 years, I have been a member of a home improvement agency in my constituency, Care and Repair England, and I still sit on its board. In a speech in May, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, emphasised the importance of energy efficiency measures. Partly in response to that speech, Care and Repair England wrote to her suggesting how advances could be made in home improvements and especially energy efficiency. I shall repeat some of the points that it made, in the hope that my hon. Friend will respond to them.
Home improvement agencies, including Care and Repair England, emphasised the need to secure funding in the longer term. The part of the voluntary sector that works in capital repair—and, indeed, the voluntary sector generally—finds it hard to organise one year's funding at a time. It is therefore asking not necessarily for more money but for funding that is secure and stable: a three-year programme might be one way to achieve that.
Secondly, although Care and Repair England has a good relationship with local authorities, the danger is that cuts may have to be made because of the problems that local authorities currently face. The organisation therefore asked whether some kind of ring fencing should be considered, especially as it has to rely on grant funding, which is an elastic way of providing funds. It has asked

not necessarily for arbitration between local and central Government but that there should be the possibility of appeal in cases where local government does not provide the funds for the voluntary sector that it should.
I am sure that my third point was raised earlier but I want to emphasise it in my own way. There is a need for appraisal and for the assessment of quality, which will help us to measure outcomes. The National Energy Audit suggests that there should be one measure—which I am sure was discussed earlier—the idea being that we can promote energy efficiency only by dealing with the whole house: the household as well as the house. Educating people in the use of central heating and other methods of ensuring that their property is warm and dry is an important part of the process. When appealing, as always, for funds, we need to recognise that informing and educating people is important. I am sure that the Government will be take that on board.
I referred to the impressive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, and anything that can be done to help is important. We know that there is real poverty out there. Fuel poverty is something that we can identify and do something about. I am sure that the House will play its part and that the Government will reply accordingly.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on securing the debate. The subject is most important and obviously gives him a certain amount of work in his constituency. While he was referring to the statistics it occurred to me that he is probably one of the hardest-worked Members of the House, being the Member of Parliament for the most under-represented constituency in the United Kingdom. So that he may represent his constituents more effectively in future, I hope that he will argue for a smaller constituency in the Isle of Wight—but that is a controversial matter and I shall not pursue it.
The hon. Gentleman identified the crux of the problem: we need to ensure that more homes are properly insulated and fitted with energy-saving appliances. He was attracted to the idea of exempting from VAT energy-saving materials. It is ironic that, when our hands are tied by the European Union, the Liberal Democrats conveniently ignore the constraints and remain the most enthusiastic party for further integration into the European Union. That is one of the luxuries of being a Liberal Democrat.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) concentrated on the impact on the health care system and highlighted the number of winter deaths. I am told that one should only ask questions in the House to which one knows the answer. I have a question to which I do not know the answer. There is a suspicion in my mind that the statistics used for international comparisons are not strictly comparable. In a genuine spirit of inquiry—that is allowed during Wednesday morning debates, which are effectively held in private—I should like to know whether any work has been done on the international comparability of the statistics. I should be interested to see the results of any such work.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, who is now in his place, referred to the environmental impact of wasted energy. That must be included in our consideration and I shall return to it later.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the cold weather payments scheme and said that it takes no account of wind chill. I hope that he will not think that I am souring the atmosphere with party political debate if I say that many hon. Members who now occupy the Government Benches, and even one or two on the Opposition Benches, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), campaigned very hard for the wind chill factor to be taken into account. Many of those Labour Members have now gone rather quiet on the subject. In the heated party political pre-election atmosphere, the issue was exploited to the full, but the Government now seem to have no intention of taking any action on it. We considered the matter when in office, but we remain to be convinced that it is the answer, so we reluctantly support the Government's attitude on the inclusion of the wind chill factor. We need to take into account the difficulties of measurement and of deciding how much compensation should be provided, and the difference between different houses in different locations suffering different degrees of wind chill. The matter is very complex. I would not begin to question the Government's sincerity in dealing with the problem of poor people paying their fuel bills: accusations of cold-heartedness or callousness benefit no one.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell said that not enough money is being devoted to the Energy Saving Trust. Money seems to be one of the main issues in this debate. It is easy to call for more money to be spent, but it is irresponsible unless we can identify where the money will come from.

Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the step taken by the Minister to restore funding to the Energy Saving Trust? I intended to refer to that when speaking of the local energy advice centres, which welcome that restoration of funding.

Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to the hon. Lady's remarks. The energy advice centres were set up by the previous Government and have proved to be very successful. We welcome the money that is being devoted to energy advice centres.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: May I clarify the Conservative party's position on funding the Energy Saving Trust? When it was set up by the previous Government, they intended to introduce a levy on gas, which would have provided much higher funding for the Energy Saving Trust. That was the then Government's policy. If, as I hope, the new Government amend the position through the utilities Bill and restore the potential for that levy, will the official Opposition support that?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we considered the matter when in government. It was a fantastically ambitious project and it saddened us that we could not proceed with it. The plans foundered on the attitude of the Director General of Gas Supply, which was that regulatory bodies were not set up to become tax collectors. If that problem can be solved, we shall consider favourably any proposals from the Government, but not until we have seen those proposals. I recognise the nifty little trap that the hon. Gentleman is setting and 1 shall not fall into it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the difficulty was caused by the way in which the legislation creating the regulatory system provided an individual regulator with the capacity to take that view? When the Conservative party was in power, that was contrary to its stated policy, but because the then regulator said that he did not agree, the legislation setting up the regulator gave him the power to make that choice and so defeated the then Government's laudable aims.

Mr. Jenkin: One of the delightful features of the Labour Government is that they are now engaging, responsibly and constructively, in the debate about how the privatised utilities are managed. Had they engaged in constructive debate when we privatised those industries, instead of showing blanket opposition and blocking their ears to the benefits of privatisation, I might be more inclined to take the Minister's comment as an admonition. Those privatisations were hugely successful. They contained a large experimental element and there is no doubt that, like any other legislation, they can be perfected and improved. If the Government bring forward proposals to that effect, we shall consider them, but will not commit ourselves to any hypothetical proposals.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke of his 15 winters in the House dealing with this subject. I was a little wary of the concept of directly involving the health service too much in the process of home insulation. GPs are busy enough as it is without making them consultants on home insulation. Perhaps, in forming commissioning groups, a GP should be appointed with responsibility for home energy efficiency. However, I imagine that people who work in the health service will think that the ability to compartmentalise such problems is essential for the efficiency of the health service, and that it is the responsibility of other bodies to ensure that people are not queueing up in doctors' surgeries because they have home energy efficiency problems.

Dr. Brand: I agree that GPs have neither the expertise nor the will to take on that expert role, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that members of the primary health care team go into people's homes, day in, day out, and know the real consequences of fuel poverty. We can make enormous steps, by providing access through the primary health care team, which nominally includes GPs, and by allowing health authorities and local authorities to do that sort of work, provided that they are properly funded. There is nothing worse than identifying a problem and finding that the only thing one can do to alleviate it is to hand out an advisory leaflet. That is not helpful.

Mr. Jenkin: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Funding is inevitably part of the debate, and one to which I shall return in a few moments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I make two quick points? First, health authorities, the public health bodies responsible for ensuring the general public health of the community, can have responsibility for saying what is good practice, and should promote and sell that as the evaluating body.
Secondly, in some practices—I believe that Birmingham is one example—grants were made available from public funds, and GPs nominated which of their patients should be the recipients of those grants. They did no more than that, but they said, "This person should qualify for this insulation scheme because it will be more useful to her or him than to others." So there are two different areas of potential responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, it may involve other primary health care members, who may not be GPs, but there are functional things that health service practitioners can do.

Mr. Jenkin: I am bound to say that the way in which the hon. Gentleman explains that now is less scary than the idea of GPs being asked to write out prescriptions for home insulation, which is how he described it before.
I am extremely wary of putting additional statutory burdens on the NHS, which is already deluged with bureaucracy and obligations. This is not my portfolio and I should probably shut up, but there is a case for considering how we can deregulate the health service so that it can better get on with its job, rather than Members of Parliament—bless their cotton socks—looking for good headlines by introducing new measures which may be wholesome in principle and intent but which do not make life easier for people.
I concede to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the problem is that so much of the energy that poor people burn in their homes goes out of the window. There is an instructive page in the Library brief on the Energy Efficiency Bill about how much simple measures save. Although the leaflet on its own may be frustrating—if one thinks that nothing will be achieved by handing over the leaflet—it says that loft insulation, which might cost £75 as a DIY job, will save £35– £40 in a single year. Draught proofing a whole property may cost £50, but will, on average, save £15– £25 a year. Those are two or three-year paybacks on the investment, which makes it a good investment—certainly better than leaving money in the building society, which is what many elderly people do. They leave money in the building society instead of having the information explained to them and perhaps having someone younger and more able to help them with those simple tasks. The new deal has a role to play in getting young people to come into elderly people's homes to help them with simple tasks that need not cost any public money. Information and voluntary help, or help from another Government programme, are perhaps a more practical answer.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke of the need to assess the quality of what we do. That is always a problem with Government programmes; there is a fanfare of intent and the allocation of money, then weaknesses occur in the implementation. That underlines why public money is not always the answer.
This debate is primarily motivated by the record of terrible suffering, particularly of elderly people, and the huge implications for the NHS. The figure of £1 billion mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is not one that I have heard before, but it is a useful reminder. We all know that our local casualty

departments become choked with elderly people because GPs are no longer able to cope with the influx of people into their surgeries. If energy efficiency can contribute towards reducing that misery and suffering, we should all join forces to tackle the problem.
The previous Government set up the home energy efficiency scheme grant, and since 1991, 2.3 million vulnerable homes have benefited from grants. So it is not as if nothing happened under the previous Government, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that in her reply. However, I suspect that her greatest problem is the Treasury, and that the message she receives from the Treasury is the same message that I am trying to give—that more money is not necessarily the answer to the problem. In some respects, the Government have already cut off their nose to spite their face. Yes, we know that VAT on fuel was politically suicidal, but there was something rational about it in terms of increasing energy costs to encourage energy conservation and to make more money available for the Exchequer, which might, perhaps, contribute to such schemes.
Against the background of privatisation, VAT on fuel was perfectly rational. According to the Library, electricity prices have fallen by 9 per cent. and gas prices have fallen by 8 per cent. over the past five years, even taking account of the residual VAT on fuel that still exists. Indeed, gas prices have fallen by 26 per cent. since 1987. The danger of those falling prices is that people start to believe that it is no longer worth insulating. If we had continued to gather the revenue, we could have spent it on the information and the extra grants that most hon. Members who have spoken this morning seem to think necessary—that would have been a better use of resources.
The Library briefing paper on the Energy Efficiency Bill states:
the introduction of competition in electricity and gas markets is leading to falling energy prices",
which must be good for alleviating fuel poverty. It continues:
According to DTI evidence received by the Trade and Industry Committee, every 10 per cent. drop in energy prices stimulates demand by 2 per cent.
We should consider the extent to which falling prices and the reduction of VAT on fuel have contributed to the amount of fuel that is wasted.

Mrs. Gilroy: I believe that VAT has significantly helped those who are poor to afford warmer homes. Another figure that the hon. Gentleman can find in briefing papers—it is significant to the health debate that we are having—is that people in the poorest households tend to take 50 to 60 per cent. of the benefit of energy efficiency works in added warmth. The decrease in VAT has helped people immediately, whereas other measures may take longer to implement.

Mr. Jenkin: I question that judgment, although we are talking about water under the bridge and I do not intend to dwell on the subject.
Our role as an Opposition is to scrutinise Government policy, but one of the glories of being in opposition is that we can start with a clean sheet. [Interruption.] The Labour party cleaned the sheet a few times in opposition,


and much good it did it—Labour became a good deal more palatable as a Government than it would have been a few years ago.
I conclude my remarks by inviting representations to the Opposition from all the organisations that are concerned with energy efficiency and poverty, and from those who have to struggle to pay their fuel bills. Our policies are in a state of flux, and we want to include all points of views in our debate about the future of policy—if people want to contact me, they are extremely welcome to do so.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on securing this debate and on drawing our attention to the role of preventive health schemes in reducing the number of people who live in uncomfortable and unhealthy surroundings. I also take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to the Dispatch Box in his new role. I hope that he continues to revel in the glory of opposition for a long time. He may think that he is starting with a clean sheet, but the Conservative party has form on these matters as long as all of our arms put together, as we shall continue to point out. However, I would be the first to say that not all that form was completely bad—we inherited some good practice as well as some things that we wish we had not.
I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I am working closely with my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health—although she is not sitting beside me at the moment, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that there is much co-operation between our Departments on this matter. The hon. Member for North Essex did not seem fully to appreciate that we are trying to switch spending from the symptoms of a problem to its causes—a theme which ran through what I believe has been a worthwhile debate on one of the most important issues that we face.
Being cold at home in winter and unable to do anything about it is clearly a form of social exclusion—it reduces the quality of life for many people, including the most vulnerable. Moreover, it represents a barrier to progress towards achieving our Kyoto environmental targets, which form a background to the whole debate; those targets will force a change in the way in which we live and behave, and will be the focus of much Government policy. How can we expect the conservation message to be successful when too many families are facing an increased risk of ill health because they cannot keep warm at home, even if they consume fuel at a rate that they cannot afford?
When we came to office, I was deeply concerned about the problems associated with fuel poverty. I quickly set up an interdepartmental group of officials—they come from a surprising number of Departments—to take a hard look at the issues surrounding fuel poverty and to work up imaginative policy options. We are looking from all directions and angles for the best ways forward, which I hope will lead in the medium term to a more coherent and integrated strategy for dealing with the problem. To extend the discussion, I invited interested bodies to enter into a national debate about the best ways in which to overcome the problem of too many cold homes.
The inability of households to enjoy adequate heating without spending disproportionate amounts of their income means that they lack affordable warmth. As hon. Members have pointed out, that means that there is an increased risk of ill health, with all the consequent economic and social costs. Typically, 30,000 more people die in winter in the United Kingdom than would be expected at the average death rate for the year. Several thousand of those deaths are likely to be associated with cold conditions in homes.
The hon. Member for North Essex asked about the statistics. The statistics that countries bandy around are national ones—we have not been able to find any internationally comparable statistics on cold-associated deaths. We can make comparisons only by using the figures that are collected nationally, which may be incompatible. Nevertheless, we must accept that, as a nation, we have an unacceptably high excess winter death rate, if I may use the jargon.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) may not like everything about European organisations, but, as it is difficult to find good comparables, the collection of statistics is exactly the sort of job that we could reasonably devolve to either the Community statistical office, the Council of Europe or one of the other European bodies. Such comparative figures would be useful—the information could enable European Union social policy to be targeted at helping the countries that are at the bottom of the league table.

Angela Eagle: I do not disagree with that. International statistics are always interesting and sometimes—if they are coherent and justifiable—very revealing.
As I was saying, several thousand of the 30,000 deaths are likely to be associated with cold conditions in homes. The excess is highest in the elderly—the main causes are heart attacks, strokes, respiratory illnesses and accidents. There is good evidence that temperature contributes to winter mortality—there are more deaths in colder winters, and in colder spells within winters, and there are known physiological mechanisms by which temperature can affect the major causes of excess deaths. Excess winter mortality may arise partly from acute exposure outdoors, but it is greater in the United Kingdom than in countries that have colder winters but warmer homes. It has decreased as home heating has improved—that is another sign of its causes—and many deaths occur among those people who do not go outdoors, which must also be taken into account.
In a typical winter, 2.5 million households in England occupy homes cold enough to increase the risk of ill health—in very cold weather, that figure rises to 3 million. Below 12 deg C, there is an increased risk of cardiovascular disorders and hypothermia. Up to 15 deg C, there may be a risk to cardiovascular and respiratory health, but a less acute one than at below 12 deg C. Illness and death could be reduced if living room temperatures were at least 16 deg C. Those risks apply to all people, but certain groups—elderly people, infants, and people with long-term illnesses who do not work—are especially vulnerable to cold-related ill health. People in those groups are found in half of all households, and, because they are more likely to be at home all day, their homes can be assumed to require heating for longer periods than those of other households, so their bills start to rise.
The prime causes of fuel poverty are lack of income and energy efficiency, and the size of the home. In the poorest households, keeping warm in housing of typical size and energy efficiency can easily take more than 20 per cent. of income, and more than 1 million households—about 6 per cent. of all households—spend more than that amount. Many households are neither able nor willing to spend that much, so those homes will be under-heated, and the occupiers cold.
A household may be cold because less is spent on fuel than a satisfactory heating regime in that home would dictate, so actual expenditure on fuel as a proportion of income is not necessarily an indicator of fuel poverty, or its degree. We consider that households in cold homes that need to spend more than 20 per cent. of their income on fuel to achieve satisfactory heating are in severe fuel poverty. Households that need to spend more than 30 per cent. of income may be described as being in extreme fuel poverty. In setting priorities, those households are obviously our prime target group, and there are about 2.5 million of them in England.
Big homes are an important, and largely ignored, factor contributing to the large number of households in fuel poverty. The fuel-poorest people tend to have larger homes on average than those who are not fuel poor. That is of particular concern in local authority housing, where most "under-occupation" involves low-income households, especially lone-pensioner households. As many vulnerable households seem to be concentrated in the least energy-efficient types of houses, allocation policies and housing management could help to tackle fuel poverty, as well as physically improve the stock.
If we are to examine effectively the effects of housing quality on health, we need a reliable yardstick against which to identify housing that presents the worst health risks. Earlier this year we issued a consultation paper on the housing fitness standard. The main proposal is to develop and test a fitness rating approach as a replacement for the current fitness standard. A rating approach would give an overall rating to a dwelling rather than using the current pass-or-fail test. It would encompass the important health risks in the home and distinguish between their varying degrees of severity. It should provide a more effective mechanism for identifying and targeting action on the worst housing, including the worst-insulated and the worst-heated housing. Responses to the consultation paper are still being considered.
People in extreme fuel poverty tend to occupy housing with low energy efficiency. In 1991, the mean energy rating of their homes was 17 points as measured by standard assessment procedure, against a mean rating for all housing of 35 points. Since then, the overall picture has improved a bit. The latest English house condition survey suggests that the mean value has risen by about four points.
Part L of the building regulations dealing with energy conservation matters is currently under review, with the aim of establishing the maximum possible contribution that building regulations can make to carbon dioxide reduction targets while still observing proportionality, allowing flexibility for designers and avoiding unreasonable technical risk or excessive cost. In addition to reviewing measures affecting new construction, we

want to see how the existing stock of buildings can be brought more under control. All that will help us to improve the energy efficiency of buildings.
In terms of absolute numbers, half the fuel-poorest are owner-occupiers, but that reflects the fact that most households are in the owner-occupied sector. In percentage terms, the incidence is greater in the rented sectors. Ten per cent. of owner-occupiers, 18 per cent. of social housing tenants and no fewer than 30 per cent. of private rented tenants are in severe or extreme fuel poverty. Hardly any of them actually spend more than 20 per cent. of income on energy to achieve a satisfactory heating regime, so most of them live in cold homes.
There is a clear correlation between severe fuel poverty and household type. Lone pensioners account for 44 per cent. of all households in that category, and for 37 per cent. of the total. Most of the rest are pensioner couples, lone adults and single parents.

Mr. Drew: Surely one of the key issues is education. There has been significant success in using home safety checks to help pensioners to make their homes much safer. A similar co-ordinated approach on energy efficiency could make a useful hit.

Angela Eagle: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, and those of everyone who has spoken and who has fed ideas to my Department's review. We have clearly identified the problems, and, as I have said, we have begun to deal with some of them. We came to Government determined to do more to tackle poverty—both general poverty and fuel poverty. We have cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. That is worth around £18 a year to an average family and impacts most effectively on those in severe or acute fuel poverty. We introduced winter fuel supplements for pensioners for this year and next, and those, too, are worth more to the poorest pensioners.
We have started to deliver on our promise to increase energy efficiency activity and investment. The capital receipts initiative is channelling £750 million more into housing investment, and our welfare-to-work programme is making more activity possible through help with employment and training costs. Very soon, there will be a reduced rate of VAT on energy efficiency grant schemes, which will increase their output by about 10 per cent. As the hon. Member for North Essex said, there is the question of European Union regulations and potential further reductions, and we are bringing that matter to the attention of our EU partners. We hope to make some progress, but I have none to report yet.
I am particularly keen to see how existing programmes might do more to get to the heart of fuel poverty. The main one concerned with improving the insulation of homes is the familiar home energy efficiency scheme, which has already given extra insulation and other measures to 2.5 million homes, giving benefit worth an average £45 a year to each household through a combination of more comfort and reduced energy consumption. The scheme is at present improving the energy rating by about 3.5 standard assessment points on average.
Last year I agreed to the changes announced by the previous Government, because they were almost implemented when we came into office. However, I said that I would review the scheme as soon as possible to see


if it was meeting customers' needs. That review is not complete, but it is becoming clear that we could do more to direct benefit to people in the worst fuel poverty, rather than to those who are simply poor. A large proportion of grants goes to people whose homes are more energy efficient than the average for the housing stock, and many of the recipients are not in any degree of fuel poverty in terms of actual expenditure on heating. The scheme is not successfully reaching private tenures.
The scheme was recently examined by the National Audit Office, whose report was considered by the Public Accounts Committee. As a result, we are committed to making a number of changes to the way in which the scheme is administered. Changes that I expect to emerge from the present review will address those issues. I want to make a good scheme even better, and will look carefully at the present structure of the scheme to see whether there are any barriers to giving real help to the most fuel poor. I want to consider particularly whether we can target grants better, and achieve greater improvements to the insulation standards of the very worst homes.
I have no doubt that my present review will conclude that there are arguments for modifying the home energy efficiency scheme to make it work better.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Lady hope to be able to lift the gas regulator's block through changes that are due in utility regulation?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will know what our Green Paper said about that. We hope to ensure that Ministers will be responsible for that policy. The consultation process is not complete, and it would be wrong for me to make any announcement about what we intend to do. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have a great deal of sympathy for his points.
The task ahead is to integrate present policies and programmes into a strategy for a concerted and coherent assault on the social exclusion that fuel poverty causes. We will consider whether it might be more cost-effective to concentrate more on the quality of housing, and to make houses easier and cheaper to heat, rather than to help people with the cost of fuel. We might in that way be able to take more households out of fuel poverty, thus improving their quality of life while making a real impact on the consumption of energy, which will help us to achieve our challenging Kyoto target, increase people's health and do something about social infrastructure.
A strategy with investment in more energy-efficient housing at its heart would succeed only if it brought the homes of the fuel poorest up to acceptable standards. We would have to bear it in mind that, for some households, energy efficiency is not the major factor causing fuel poverty, and other solutions would still be necessary to help them. However, for people for whom energy efficiency is a solution, we need to consider how much we would have to improve their homes to take them out of fuel poverty.
I agree with much of what was said about linkages to health authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I are seeking innovative ways to pursue those.
I have launched a national debate on how we might best achieve our aim of getting rid of the evils of fuel poverty. My officials are actively studying how we might produce coherent and integrated strategies that go to the heart of the problem and we are reviewing existing programmes to see if they can be targeted better. We have not been helped by the Conservative party's legacy of years of under-investment, and we intend to address that neglect.

Sports Grounds

Mr. Ian Pearson: As we rapidly approach World cup kick-off time, if, by some miracle, football fans could divert their attention from that, they would undoubtedly cheer on the Government in their actions to implement their manifesto pledge to stop the sale of playing fields, which schools and communities need. Where will we find the next Alan Shearer—or, perhaps I should say, the next Duncan Edwards, who started his football career in Dudley schools—if we concrete over all our school playing fields? I am glad that the Government are giving the issue their serious and determined attention.
The Government's actions to date have focused on local authority-owned playing fields. I should like to raise the issue of privately owned sports grounds and highlight a loophole in the law that allows their owners to take them out of public use and use scorched-earth tactics, deliberately allowing the grounds to go to rack and ruin and, in effect, turning them into bomb sites in an attempt to get planning permission.
As I understand it, there is nothing in the town and country planning Acts or other legislation to prevent owners from deliberately and systematically dismantling or demolishing properties used for recreational purposes. There is nothing in the landlord and tenant Acts to prevent owners from refusing to renew a lease to football or other sporting clubs. National planning policy guidance does not help; nor does the local development planning process. The planning system can prevent a change in usage from sport to commercial or housing development, but it cannot prevent owners from stopping all sporting activity on their property.
There is a growing national problem. Privately owned sports grounds are being taken out of recreational use and sold to developers who put the assets into a land bank until they can get planning permission for housing or commercial development. The only game now being played at those grounds is a waiting game as owners wait for the community to get sick to the back teeth of the dereliction that they have created and for the local authority to agree to a planning application, which will allow the owners to make a financial killing.
I shall illustrate that general problem with two specific examples in my constituency. The first is Round Oak stadium. The site was originally owned by the Earl of Dudley, and I understand that he donated it for use by the workers at the local steel mill. It has been used as a sports ground since at least the 1920s by successive generations of steelworkers and their families. The stadium was built up to include a football pitch, a covered stand and terracing, a substantial clubhouse—which was used by organisations such as Age Concern for tea dances and other events—and a bowling green. Cricket, netball and tennis have all been played there. The facilities were there for the local community to use and it was rightly proud of them.
The ground has been paid for many times over with the blood, sweat and tears of the community, particularly the steelworkers, in Brierley Hill, Brockmoor and Pensnett. With the closure of the steelworks in the early 1980s, problems started to arise. British Steel began to look for somebody to take over the running of the sports ground

and, in 1986, was in discussions with Dudley metropolitan borough council, which helped to obtain a grant of £35,000 from the Sports Council to fund partly the purchase of the ground. If Dudley council had purchased and taken control of the site, none of the present problems of dereliction would have occurred.
However, a gaping hole appeared in the pitch at Dudley Town football club. Such holes appear with depressing regularity in the black country, where there are many old mine workings. Obviously, Dudley Town football club could not play at the ground and looked around for a home. With the council's assistance, it was agreed that the Sports Council grant would be transferred to the club, and it took ownership of the Round Oak stadium. It was explicitly intended at that time that the football club—a duly constituted members' club—would hold the land in trust, and a restrictive covenant, which formed part the sale agreement, stated that the site should be used only as a community sports ground and social club for the next 80 years. That restrictive covenant is still in force.
Problems have arisen since 1994 when Dudley Town's duly constituted members' club transferred its assets and liabilities to a private limited company owned by two local business men—Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester. The circumstances surrounding the transfer were, to say the least, not entirely satisfactory. At that time, the club had estimated debts of £100,000. Those were more than covered by the asset of the ground, but members felt coerced into agreeing to the transfer of ownership. They were told:
if this proposal is not accepted the liabilities of the club then fall upon you the members".
That was a deliberate use of scare tactics by the two new owners and it is indicative of some of the tactics that they have employed since then.
The ground was transferred to Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester in May 1994 and it seems that from that point they aimed to market it as a development site. A deal was quickly concluded with a developer to purchase the site for £1.3 million if planning permission was obtained. The original planning application is interesting. Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester tried to get local community support for it by saying that Dudley Town football club was in debt and the only way to ensure its survival was to sell the ground. The fact that the club is still playing proves that that was not true.
The business men tried to persuade local residents that if the plan did not go ahead, they would have to turn the clubhouse into a night club, or the whole property would be sold, and 20 or 24 floodlit five-a-side soccer pitches would be created on the site. That threat was also a deliberate use of scare tactics, and shows that the owners have no regard for the local community.
Dudley council, to give it credit, stuck to its guns and said that the land had value as a community resource and refused to give planning permission to the owners. Since then, it has taken the case to appeal and the planning inspector has, rightly, also said that the land should remain a sports ground.
I understand that the latest reports are that the debts of Dudley Town Football Club Ltd. stand at £600,000. I fail to see how they could so quickly have escalated to that level. It seems abundantly clear to me that Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester have not invested any money in the club for a considerable time. I seriously question whether


they have the club's interests at heart. It is said that the limited company is constituted so that the two men cannot benefit financially from it. What is obvious to me, however, is that it would require only a clever accountant to convert the sponsorship money that they have put into the club into directors' loans. They would get out of it all the money that they have put into the club, and would probably make more money in the process. They should not be allowed to get away with it, and I do not believe that they have the right to sell the ground, which should be held in trust for the local community.
It is clear that the owners have no interest in maintaining the ground as a sports ground, so I challenge them: sell it to someone who will. I repeat my offer to get the money together so that the ground can be placed in trust and used for the benefit of the local community. I say directly to Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester, "If you love football, and if you have any commitment to the local community, sell the ground at a fair market value as a sports ground, not at some inflated price based on the assumption that planning permission will eventually be given if you turn it into a sufficiently disgusting eyesore that the council and the local community get sick to the back teeth of it."
The second issue is Dudley Wood stadium, which is another difficult case. Nothing has happened to it since November 1995, when the owner terminated the lease of Cradley Heath speedway club, which is an internationally renowned team. It was one of the leading clubs, nationally and internationally, and it operated from Dudley Wood stadium from 1947 until 1995. The team managed to ride the 1996 season at Stoke-on-Trent, but, since then, riders have had to be contracted out or loaned to other clubs. In effect, Cradley Heath is not in existence.
That is a terrible shame. Cradley Heath is the only world-class sporting team in Dudley borough. It won two league championships; eight knock-out cups, which is a record; six premierships, which is also a record; two four-team knock-out trophies; one inter-league knock-out cup; and one British trophy. It has produced three riders who have won the world championship—Bruce Penhall, who won it twice; Eric Gundersen, who won it three times; and Jan Pederson—and I have watched them all. In the year that Cradley Heath was kicked out of the ground, it finished third in the premier league, won the four-team knock-out final and —reached the semi-final of the knock-out cup.
The current owner has terminated the lease and concluded an agreement with a developer, subject to planning permission, to build houses on the site. The planning application was turned down by Dudley council and was also lost on appeal. The council has tried every way that it can to bring Cradley Heath speedway club back into existence. The owners turned the council down flat, rejecting a land-swap deal which I discussed with Ministers in the previous Administration.
The stadium has not been used for three years, and it is as if a sign has been put up saying, "Open for vandalism". Little has been done to protect the property, and there have been numerous arson attacks. There is little usable structure left, with the result that most of the ground is obsolete. Nothing is happening to the stadium, and the owners are again talking to developers, even though the appeal went against them.
Hon. Members should consider those two cases. Round Oak stadium has been completely demolished and destroyed. The clubhouse was sold off—piece by piece and, eventually, brick by brick—after the planning appeal inspector ruled that the site could not be used for residential development. There is nothing there, and it looks like a bomb site.
Both cases are mirrored up and down the country, and the practice of deliberate dilapidation, dereliction and devastation is a growing problem. If we are to protect our sports grounds, we must take action. I have several suggestions that the Minister might consider. First, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives local authorities the power to intervene where houses are to be demolished, but not to protect recreational facilities. The Government should consider such controls, to give local authorities the power to intervene where sports grounds are to be demolished.
Secondly, it is at least worth considering whether the Government should require owners of sports grounds to keep them fit for the purpose for which they were intended. There could be problems with that, but the Government might consider a duty of care.
Thirdly, we should consider giving leaseholders or, failing that, another bona fide sporting organisation, rights to continued use or the right to buy out a lease if the landlord wants to use the property for purposes other than the sporting purposes for which it was intended.
Fourthly, we should consider legislation on compulsory purchase powers and allowing not only local authorities, but public bodies or trusts, to buy sports grounds at an open-market valuation if the owner fails to keep it fit for public use.
The use by owners and developers of scorched-earth tactics—the deliberate and systematic vandalising of their own properties—is an abuse of the planning system. It should not be tolerated. I hope that the Minister will assure us of the Government's determination to stamp that practice out and their total commitment to protecting sports grounds for community use.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) for allowing me to make a brief contribution.
My hon. Friends will be aware of my concern over some time about this issue, especially in respect of the home of my football club, Brighton and Hove Albion. I do not want to go over the ground that I discussed in the House last Friday, but I should mention one issue to the Minister: the possibility of the Government's developing and supporting planning policies that allow sports grounds to be developed for local communities.
Far too often, sports clubs involved in football, cricket, speedway and rugby union that are trying to gain planning consent are held up by local planning committees or by Departments. The Government should tackle the issue in a way that would make it easier for sports clubs to develop in their communities. That would avoid some of the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise that issue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) on initiating the debate. I fully understand why he has raised the important issue of the threat to urban sports and recreation grounds.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that the disposal of private land is, in the first instance, a commercial matter. The Government have no powers to influence such disposals directly, but they are subject, where appropriate, to planning controls. Any application for the development of land is subject to the normal planning procedures. In respect of playing fields and sports grounds, the relevant guidance to which local authorities must have regard is in planning policy guidance note 17.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the planning applications in respect of Round Oak sports ground and Dudley Wood stadium, the home of the former Cradley Heath speedway team, were both considered by the local planning authority. Planning permission was refused, largely because they would be contrary to the guidance in PPG 17. As he said, both applications were subject to appeal, and public inquiries were held. In both cases, the inspectors upheld the decision of the local authority and refused the appeals. I understand that new applications are likely to be submitted, so my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be proper for me to comment further on the merits of those individual cases; to do so might fetter the impartiality of the Secretary of State, should the case be referred to him later.
Although I cannot say more on the individual cases—despite the powerful case that my hon. Friend has made in respect of both sites—I am pleased to be able to use the debate to explain our planning guidance for the use of sports and recreation grounds. I hope that I will be able to reassure him that we are dealing with the issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
Under the previous Government, local authorities were placed under severe pressure to find alternative resources to support their normal functions. That led many local authorities to sell sports grounds, playing fields and open spaces. Many private owners and operators of sports and recreation grounds also faced pressures—mainly commercial—to sell their grounds in favour of more profitable uses.
This Government believe that it is wrong to sell and to develop sports and recreation grounds that communities need, and we propose that the practice should be subject to greater scrutiny. We acknowledge that there are growing pressures with regard to the potential use of sports and recreation grounds. Those pressures could increase, for example, in the light of our need to accommodate a growing number of households.
On 23 February, the Government issued their policy in "Planning for the Communities of the Future", which shows how authorities should manage planning for household growth. The policy aims to ensure that, as far as possible, new housing development is located within existing urban areas. That will help to promote more sustainable patterns of development and to reduce the pressure for development in the countryside.
However—this is important—we also want to ensure the availability of good-quality playing fields and open spaces, so that urban areas are attractive places in which

people want to live. Urban quality should not be sacrificed; indeed, in many places, we must enhance it. That means that sports and recreation grounds, including playing fields and open spaces, need greater protection.
We believe that sports and recreation grounds are important components of civilised life and are vital for maintaining the quality of communities. It is important that such facilities are close to where people live, so that they can participate in sports or spectate; my hon. Friend drew attention to the role of the two sites as a location for people both to play and to watch football and speedway. We attach high importance to retaining sports and recreation grounds in urban areas. In the past 20 years, too many of our sporting facilities, in particular playing fields, have been lost and grass-roots sports have suffered as a result.
It is part of the function of the planning system to ensure that adequate land is allocated both for organised sport and for informal recreation. As I have said, the policies are set out in PPG17 on sport and recreation. That emphasises the special significance of all sports and recreation grounds, including those that are privately owned, and the fact that they should normally be protected. It advises local planning authorities to distinguish in their development plans between sports and recreation grounds—including playing fields, parks and other open spaces—that need protection from development, and sites that are temporarily in recreation use, and unused open land, that may be suitable for development.
Local planning authorities should prepare development plan policies and proposals that cover specific needs for both mainstream and specialist sports grounds, including local motor or air sports, and football stadiums. Sports and recreation grounds should not be developed for other uses unless it has been established that the sites will not be required in the longer term for community use, or unless alternative replacement provision is to be provided as part of the proposed development.
The emphasis is on identifying whether there are local deficiencies in provision and, where there are deficiencies, protecting such grounds by local planning authorities adopting clear strategies for sports and recreation. Local planning authorities should have clear plan policies that show the sites that will be protected. That is the most effective way to ensure their survival.
On 16 January, the Government announced how we will fulfil our manifesto pledge to stop the sale and development of playing fields that schools and communities need. The Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would tighten planning controls in respect of development of all local authority-owned playing fields, which include sports grounds, where the English Sports Council advises against proposed developments. We will require a local planning authority to notify the Secretary of State of any proposal for development of a local authority-owned playing field, where the English Sports Council has objected because it considers that it would have a detrimental effect on the provision of playing fields.
We consulted all local planning authorities about the proposed arrangement and there was overwhelming support for the proposal. We will shortly issue a direction under the General Permitted Development Procedure Order to bring the arrangements into operation.
In 1996, my Department commissioned research into the effectiveness of PPG 17 in protecting and promoting sporting interests. That research confirms the growing concerns about the redevelopment of sports grounds and suggests revising the guidance. We will shortly publish the report on the research, and we will announce how we propose to respond to its recommendations. Clearly, we wish to ensure that planning guidance is up to date and relevant.
Local planning authorities are required to determine planning applications in accordance with their development plans. For planning applications involving the development of sports and recreation grounds, local authorities should take into account the longer-term needs of the wider community and consider whether there is, or is likely to be, a deficiency.
If the application is likely to result in a local deficiency in the supply of sports and recreation grounds, there should be a presumption in favour of rejecting it. If there is doubt about whether there is a deficiency or whether the application is likely to result in a deficiency—in other words, where a local planning authority and the English Sport Council disagree—the application should be referred to the Secretary of State, who will decide whether to leave the application for the local authority to determine, or determine it himself.
Once developed, sports and recreation grounds are gone for ever. Therefore, stringent scrutiny of proposals to build on them is vital. That is what we are providing and, in so doing, we are delivering our manifesto pledge.
My hon. Friend raised four specific questions. The first was control of demolition, on which there has been an interesting case in recent months involving the Thames Ditton lawn tennis club, where similar issues to those that my hon. Friend has highlighted were raised. We have been considering carefully the implications of the judgment in that case and whether further action is required by the Government.
My hon. Friend's second point was about the maintenance of properties. It is essentially for the owners to ensure that properties are maintained, but, where there is a serious threat to public health as a result of deterioration, local authority environmental health departments do have powers to take action.
On the third point that my hon. Friend raised, leaseholders' rights are an issue with which I am familiar, having already dealt with a debate on the subject this morning. Different rules apply in respect of residential, as against commercial, leaseholds. The Government's commitments to leasehold reform are explicitly in respect of residential leases. My hon. Friend has, however, raised the precarious position of sporting clubs with a leasehold interest and highlighted their vulnerability. That certainly deserves further consideration.
Finally, on my hon. Friend's concern about compulsory purchase powers, he will be aware that the Government have been considering both the current working of compulsory purchase procedures and the blight on properties that may arise from the use of such powers or from other factors. I cannot give him any commitments this morning, but I assure him that the whole issue of the use of compulsory purchase powers is under careful consideration by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning.

Mr. Pearson: Will my hon. Friend specifically say something about what I call scorched-earth tactics—a deliberate tactic by owners and developers systematically to dilapidate their properties in the hope and expectation that, eventually, they will get planning permission?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raised that matter in his speech, and I hoped that I had conveyed the fact that the existing planning powers available to local authorities, if properly applied, provide a safeguard, in that there should be no presumption by a developer that he or she will secure planning consent simply by allowing a site to fall into disrepair.
If a site is necessary for the provision of local recreation space and open space for the community, that is a legitimate community need which the local authority can and should properly take into account in considering any application submitted by a developer for a change of use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) asked about the interests of sports clubs. Of course, he will understand that the Government have to give equal treatment to all applicants for development, whether they be sports clubs or not, but I assure him that the Government are very conscious of the needs of sports clubs and the need for sports provision, and we are keen to ensure that we develop the appropriate facilities.

Magistrates Courts (Suffolk)

1 pm

Mr. Richard Spring: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce the debate. I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, for being here, and for his considerable courtesy in receiving my hon. Friends and myself on more than one occasion to discuss this important issue in the life of Suffolk.
Five of the 10 existing courthouses in Suffolk are under threat. Two are in my constituency, and the others are in the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), both of whom, I am sure, will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), and I have here messages of support from my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard).
Throughout Suffolk there is a universal view that closure would mean a terrible breakdown of the criminal justice system locally, and would have a detrimental effect on local communities. There is a simple principle at stake here—that local justice should, if at all possible, be done locally, in local magistrates courts, by local magistrates.
The question at the heart of the issue is: is the proposal to close the five courts justified? I have to tell the House that I do not believe that there is any justification whatever. Suffolk is a rural county and settlements are geographically spread out. The public transport infrastructure is poor, and to the extent that it exists at all in many areas, it hardly works. It would certainly not be convenient for those seeking to use the courts. The small towns and rural communities of Suffolk are often self-contained, and very different one from another.
The working party report of the magistrates courts committee in Suffolk sought to justify the proposals. Under the heading, "The National Background", it says:
In Suffolk we are fortunate that the County Council, the Police, the Prosecution Service and the MCC share the same boundaries. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent and if we are to remain as an independent unit as one of the smaller MCCs we will have to be financially viable. We consider that a serious attempt by the MCC to prepare itself for the 21st century is essential.
I do not believe, and I am sure that the Minister does not believe, that there is any fundamental reason based on national criteria for the MCC to take that view, because it is not confirmed by reality.
The report highlights economies of scale, as follows:
It cannot be considered either effective or efficient use of resources to have court staff travelling around the County when we already have a problem with the number of court clerks actually sitting in courts.
That reminds me of the story in which, at the turn of the century, someone was shown all the great yachts belonging to Wall street bankers—"This is Mr. J. P. Morgan's yacht, this is Mr. Rockefeller's and that is Mr. Vanderbilt's." That individual turned round and asked, "Where are the customers' yachts?"
The courthouse system of local magistracy exists not for the convenience of court clerks but for the carrying out of the criminal justice system in local communities, and for defendants, witnesses, magistrates and solicitors.
Those are the people primarily concerned with making the system work well. Local magistrates know their communities and areas well, and the difficulties of recruiting magistrates are already well known. Everything would be put at risk.
Magistrates, the police, defendants, witnesses and solicitors would all incur substantial additional costs if the courthouses were closed. Here, I am delighted to have the support of the commander of the western area of the Suffolk constabulary, who entirely shares my view about additional policing time and costs.
The public purse would lose far more money through the closure of the courts than would be gained by any possible savings highlighted by the magistrates courts committee. Indeed, the North Essex and Suffolk Law Society says that additional costs for solicitors alone, primarily because of legal aid costs, would outweigh any possible savings, without even considering all the other cost pressures on the public purse.
In a letter to me dated 24 March, the justices' chief executive wrote:
The Courts Committee has had regard to the poor facilities at those courthouses".
The Minister's predecessor as Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), visited the courthouses in my constituency in January last year, and saw for himself what the facilities were like. There was no question of criticism of their fabric. Furthermore, I have never heard any criticism from magistrates, members of the public or anyone else in the local communities about the facilities.
The working party report says:
Many rural courts are cramped and not conducive to the dignified delivery of justice.
That is a matter for magistrates and those involved in the local criminal justice system to decide, and those people are entirely happy with the fabric of the courthouses. That argument, like all the other arguments advanced by the MCC, does not wash.
Another argument that the MCC has hinted at is access for the disabled. I have yet to have a complaint from any disabled person about access to the courts, where arrangements are made should the necessity ever arise in the first place. No local magistrate believes in the closure of the courthouses—that is an essential element in the situation.
One of the two courthouses in my constituency is in Haverhill, a town with a population of more than 20,000 and growing rapidly. Surrounding villages bring in another 8,000 people, and recruitment of magistrates has been especially difficult. Such is the real concern in that community about the potential closure of the courthouse, that I have had sackloads of letters from people there on the subject. The town council is prepared to spend £9,000 of its minuscule budget to help to keep the courthouse open.
The reason for that support from the local community lies in the campaigns, to which I pay tribute, by the Haverhill Echo and the Haverhill Weekly News, which have been most supportive. Both papers point out that it would be impossible for them to send a reporter long distances—to Bury St. Edmunds, say—to report what happens in the magistrates court, which is an important part of the local criminal justice system.
Newmarket, the world headquarters of racing, has a population of 20,000, soon to be increased by 5,000 in the nearby village of Red Lodge. Already, one prominent local magistrate has resigned because there is no adequate public transport between Newmarket and Mildenhall. There is a huge wave of public fury in Newmarket at that, and I salute the Newmarket Journal, the local newspaper, which has been running a coupon campaign. The fabric of the building concerned contains cells; it is adjacent to the police station; it is complete; and it works extremely well.
The Parliamentary Secretary has seen the correspondence, and he will know that the magistrates courts committee has a budgetary surplus this year and next year. All of the salient points that I have sought to raise in correspondence with the chairman of the MCC have been ignored; he has refused to answer those points.
That brings me to my final point, which concerns the consultation process—or rather, the lack of it. Solicitors in the county of Suffolk have been extremely angry at the lack of full consultation with them. We as Members of Parliament sought meetings with the chairman of the magistrates courts committee. We offered to meet him in London; we offered to meet him in Suffolk; we offered to meet him privately; we offered anything for his convenience; but he flatly refused to see us. That reflects an attitude of utter contempt for the democratically elected representatives of the people of Suffolk.
It is a matter of judgment for the magistrates who sit on the magistrates courts committee whether, knowing how the matter has been conducted, they would want the chairman and vice-chairman of the committee to continue in their jobs. If I were a magistrate, knowing how the public in Suffolk have lost confidence in the MCC, I would seriously consider their future/
The Minister will know that the county council has appealed. Every district council in the county shares its view, which is one of opposition. The local daily paper, the East Anglian Daily Times, has been magnificently supportive. There is no basis or justification for the closures. Our country, of course, comprises urban and rural areas; people must have no perception of an urban-rural divide. I know that the Minister will agree with that. If magistrates courts are closed in a rural county such as Suffolk, that will be regarded as a body blow to the fabric of our rural communities and our rural county. I therefore beseech the Minister to reject the proposals to close the magistrates courts.

Mr. Jamie Cann: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Does the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) have the permission of the Minister to speak? In an Adjournment debate, the Minister must give his authority for that.

Mr. Cann: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I will not speak for long.
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on initiating this Adjournment debate, and on the work that he has put in on the issue. I am not quite as harsh about the members of the MCC as he has been; they are honest, decent people trying to do the right thing. It is perfectly appropriate for them to review costs and

levels of service. My problem with them is that they have produced candle-end savings, at great cost to the service provided to the people of Suffolk.
It may be thought odd that I am speaking in the debate; there is no proposal to remove the magistrates court in my constituency. However, we must recognise that under the proposed reduction in the number of magistrates courts, more and more people will use the court in my constituency. There is a great danger that the process of justice, which in many cases is already too slow, will be further slowed by such closures. It is of interest to everyone in Suffolk if the police budget will be affected in the way that everyone to whom I have spoken tells me that it will. More people being transported greater distances means fewer people on beats; it is as simple as that.
I am therefore against the MCC's proposal, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to us.

Mr. John Gummer: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for allowing me to speak briefly.
There are two magistrates courts in my constituency. One is in Felixstowe, the population of which and neighbouring parts is more than 25,000. The court has a proud record; it is busy, and perfectly adequate for the magistrates who want to sit there. Certainly there is no room for more cases in Ipswich without considerable changes in the Ipswich courts. I have occasionally argued with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), but we are united on this matter. It is not sensible for either Ipswich or Felixstowe. It is important that there should be a magistrates court, which is of the town in Felixstowe and to which people can relate. That is what local justice is about.
At the other end of my constituency, in Saxmundham, there is a rural court, providing a crucial part of the service. We are talking about a rural area, so people are supposed to go to Lowestoft. But very few people use Lowestoft. Excellent though the town is, it is not part of people's normal run. It is hard, if not impossible, to get to Lowestoft by public transport from any of the villages. To go from Aldeburgh or Leiston to Lowestoft is a day's journey. It is far too complicated for most witnesses to want to bother. I am worried about having a justice system with witnesses being unavailable. They will not attend because it is all too much trouble. I am also worried that justice will be seen as something for the towns but not for the countryside.
The court at Saxmundham is excellent. It has all the facilities, and good access for disabled people. It is part of the town's fabric, and means that there are branch offices of solicitors in Saxmundham. All of us who defend rural areas know that, when such institutions, especially courts, are removed, all sorts of infrastructure is removed as well.
I am deeply opposed to the change, and want to add my considerable embarrassment that we have had to have this debate. The Minister has been extremely kind in using his time. But why, when the Minister has been prepared to see us twice and to allow this debate, will the magistrates courts committee not meet us at all? So rude was that committee that, when I offered to have a private meeting in my own home, the invited individual did not


even bother to say whether or not he was coming. That is the local situation, and we have been unable to solve the problem.
The money involved is not much, but it is far outweighed by costs for the time of the police, solicitors and witnesses. The costs to the public purse will be considerably greater. When one part of the public system feels that it can save money by making another service in the public system more expensive, the only person to whom to turn is the Minister. It is his job to say that it is not sensible to save £70,000 on one part of the public system, given that twice as much will be spent elsewhere.
Will the Minister do what he can to ensure that the magistrates courts committee's proposals, which are opposed by all three political parties in Suffolk, the district councils and the county council, are overturned, and that we can continue to have the excellent court service that we now have?

Mr. David Ruffley: May I place on record my appreciation of the courtesy, the time and trouble that the Minister has taken in addressing the concerns set out by my right hon. and hon. Friends? It is more courtesy than has been extended by the Suffolk magistrates courts committee.
I shall be brief, because the Minister will need time to respond. I am concerned about the future of Stowmarket courthouse. Stowmarket is a small market town in my constituency. In the past few months, there has been a movement of rural people who feel, with some justification, that rural values and interests are under threat. They see that in the health settlements that have been doled out, and they are unhappy about education funding. The issue of local justice is on all fours with their concerns about schools and hospitals. In Stowmarket, there is no local support whatsoever for the closure. The Stowmarket citizens advice bureau does not want it. Stowmarket and Needham Market town councils do not want it; nor does the local inspector, Inspector Davies. The reason why they are so opposed to the proposed closure is that it will undermine local justice.
We are in a new age of politics, when community is becoming increasingly important—no more so than in the case of Stowmarket. The magistrates in Stowmarket say passionately that only they are the best magistrates to dispense local justice. In a small town such as Stowmarket, they know many of the individuals, witnesses and local policemen. It is no use asking them to travel to Bury St. Edmunds or Ipswich to sit on cases of which they have not much knowledge. My constituents, whether witnesses or defendants, might have to travel long distances to go before people who simply do not understand them, the area or the local concerns. It is that fundamental undermining of localism that is the most offensive aspect of the closure about which we are protesting.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the magistrates courts committee has argued that it is seeking to introduce so-called economies. That argument is entirely bogus. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has eloquently said, the cost to the public purse will far outweigh any minor savings resulting from the closure of Stowmarket magistrates court.
The closure will result in higher demands on the legal aid fund and on police time, as the local police force in Stowmarket has said. For those reasons, and for the reasons adduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I urge the Minister, if this case comes before him on appeal, to weigh those arguments very carefully, not least because rural areas will be hugely appreciative if he finds in their favour.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I grateful to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for the opportunity to deal with this matter once again. I met him, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) two days ago. I note the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann).
The provision of magistrates courts in Suffolk, in common with the rest of England and Wales, is the responsibility of a locally managed service. Each area is administered by a locally based magistrates courts committee, which is made up of local magistrates. Under legislation enacted in 1994 by the previous Government, those committees have a statutory responsibility to provide for the effective and efficient administration of the magistrates courts in their areas. Those responsibilities are now set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
It is for the individual magistrates courts committee, in consultation with its paying authority—in this case, Suffolk county council—to determine both the number of courthouses it needs and where they should be sited. If an MCC decides to close a courthouse, the paying authority has the right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor under section 56 of that Act. In determining its needs, both now and for the future, an MCC might consider it prudent to close one or more old, ill-equipped or otherwise unsuitable courthouses. Of course, that might be part of a continuing programme, which includes plans for new courthouses with improved facilities.
I emphasise that whether a court should close is, in the first instance, entirely a matter for the local MCC, which takes the decision in the light of local needs. The Lord Chancellor has only a limited role in the provision of magistrates courthouses. First, he may determine any appeal that a paying authority makes to him. That is the limit of the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction on closures. Secondly, he may approve any bid for inclusion in the Lord Chancellor's Department's private finance initiative programme for new courts. Again, that must be supported by the local paying authority.
The Government are committed to the better distribution and use of the public resources that are allocated to MCCs as an integral part of the process for delivering justice. We want to provide a modern system of justice, with well-equipped and secure court rooms, and to reduce the time taken for cases to proceed through the courts, so honouring our manifesto commitment. We are committed equally to remaining within the spending limits that we have inherited. I cannot say, therefore, that more money will be available in future for a particular magistrates courts committee. It is the responsibility of the local magistrates court committee to manage within its existing resources.
The magistrates serving on the courts committees and those who sit in courthouses regularly are local people. Therefore, they are best placed to decide whether a


particular court is helping to provide an efficient and effective system to all court users. Over the past few years, Suffolk magistrates court committee has made savings of some £287,000 by streamlining administrative processes. The MCC felt it appropriate, therefore, to begin examining other areas of its expenditure.
I remind hon. Members that, before decisions were made locally, a formal consultation process was carried out by the Suffolk magistrates court committee. It consulted on two occasions, and did so much more widely than the law requires. It invited comments on its proposals from 705 individuals and organisations, seven local MPs, eight criminal justice agencies and other court users, seven district councils, 70 local solicitors, 230 parish councils and 364 magistrates, as well as carrying out the formal statutory consultation with Suffolk county council.
I understand that hon. Members who represent Suffolk were, during the second round, given six weeks in which to comment on the MCC's current proposals.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is right to say that the letters were written and replies were sent, but, as he will know as a Minister, the only way in which to discover why people have done things is to ask direct questions. The MCC refused on all occasions to answer any such questions. It insisted that they were written questions, and, when they were written, the MCC did not give any answers. It was a consultation process without any consulting; it was a one-sided consultation.

Mr. Hoon: I am simply pointing out that the MCC exceeded the requirement to consult that is placed upon it by the legislation. It consulted more widely than required under the law, and, to that extent, it has fulfilled its responsibilities under the statute.
The MCC has produced a document that provides a great deal of information. The working party's report includes a description of the accommodation of the courts in question, together with a comparison of the court where it is proposed that the work is to go, a survey of users at each court, including the percentage of actual appearances from those scheduled, modes of transport, and the times and costs of local buses and trains. The MCC received 187 responses before it reached a decision about the closures.
As a result, Suffolk magistrates court committee made a formal determination to close Felixstowe, Haverhill, Newmarket, Saxmundham and Stowmarket magistrates courts, with effect from 31 December 1998. The work is to be transferred to existing courthouses at Ipswich, Sudbury, Mildenhall, Lowestoft and Bury St. Edmunds.
Hon. Members will also be aware that Suffolk county council has now appealed against all five closures, and those appeals have yet to be determined. It would

therefore be inappropriate for me at this stage to comment in detail on the proposed closures of those courts. I can, however, describe the process and the matters that will be taken into account. The issues are presented by each party—in this case, the MCC and the county council—and each may comment on the various points that have been raised. The Lord Chancellor's Department will receive representations from several other interested parties, and I reassure the House that all those representations will be considered in detail when the appeal is decided.
The comments that Opposition Members have made to me during our two meetings, together with their observations in the debate, will be of great assistance in resolving such questions. Each appeal is considered separately and on its merits. It follows that there is no set formula by which the appeals are decided. However, certain considerations are common to every appeal. Account is taken of the accommodation that is offered, not just at the court that is subject to appeal but at the court to which the work will be transferred. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich will accept that that is taken fully into account.
For example, is the building fit for the purpose? What are the security arrangements in relation to violent offenders or those in custody? What facilities are provided for separate waiting areas for defendants and witnesses, and for access to telephones? What facilities are available for disabled people? What renovations are needed to bring the courthouse in question up to a modern and acceptable standard?
We also know of the distances that people have to travel, the cost of that travel and the time that is taken to complete the return journey. I know that that last element will be of particular concern to those right hon. and hon. Members who represent Suffolk constituencies. I am aware of those anxieties, and I shall certainly ensure that they are taken fully into account.
Local justice is not simply about the local delivery of justice; it is about local management, through the magistrates courts committee. Most important, it is about justice by local people for local people. Magistrates live locally, and they know that their communities are the bedrock of the local justice system. However, we must be open-minded about new ways of organising the business of magistrates courts. Just because things have been done in a particular way for many years does not necessarily mean that they are being done in the best way.
I am aware that difficult choices will continue to confront all the MCCs in England and Wales. I am sure that, in resolving those matters, the Government will derive considerable benefit—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the next adjournment debate, entitled, "Mr. Ray Herring and the Merseyside Police".

Mr. Raymond Herring

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: This debate revolves around the requirement to resign that was imposed on a former sergeant of the Merseyside police, his unfair treatment and the bias shown to him by senior personnel and the police service as a whole.
The man in question is Raymond Ravenscroft Herring, a constituent of mine. Mr. Herring is a 41-year-old man, who has served in the Merseyside police force for 20 years. He was qualified to the rank of inspector, and was twice commended for professionalism and dedication to duty. He held the position of custody officer in Liverpool's main prison detention centre, which is probably one of the most stressful and busiest posts outside London.
Mr. Herring's misfortunes started in 1993, when a summer ball was held opposite his home at the Blundellsands tennis club. Mr. Herring had been in dispute with the club for some time over its apparent flouting of the licensing laws, the volume of noise and the coming and going of visitors.
On the eve of 12 September 1993, the Blundellsands tennis club embarked on its summer ball. Mr. Herring rang the police to complain about the noise, but received no immediate response. He then crossed the road from his home to the lawn tennis club to complain about the noise. Mr. Michael Smerdon, a prominent character in the case, met Mr. Herring. Mr. Smerdon's wife was the president of the lawn tennis club, and Mr. Smerdon had the role of overseeing entry into the club and other managerial matters.
Mr. Herring obtained no satisfaction from Mr. Smerdon, which led to a lengthy dispute between the two men and other patrons of the club. As he left the ball, Mr. Herring was still awaiting the arrival of the police. There, Mr. Herring and his wife were outnumbered by people who were, in the main, worse for drink. A scuffle ensued, resulting in Mrs. Herring being pushed to the floor and receiving injuries. Mr. Herring did not respond, however, preferring to wait for the police to arrive to settle matters, which they duly did.
Even though Mr. Herring felt that the group had behaved in a disorderly fashion—in addition to his wife being pushed to the ground, his car had been damaged—he accepted the police decision that the matter should be resolved as a civil dispute, and that no formal action should be taken. Everyone was advised accordingly—and that should have been the end of the matter.
At this point, the following facts should be noted. When Mr. Herring made his complaint against the tennis club, Mr. Smerdon was unaware that Mr. Herring was a policeman. Mr. Smerdon became aware of that only after the incident. During the dispute at the lawn tennis club, Mr. Herring said that he would oppose any future application for an extension to the drinking hours that the lawn tennis club might submit to the local licensing committee.
Mr. Herring believes that those facts could have encouraged Mr. Smerdon to make a formal complaint against him. Mr. Herring believes that Mr. Smerdon wanted to discredit him, thus ensuring that any objection that he might raise with the licensing committee with

respect to an extension of drinking hours would be placed to one side. Mr. Smerdon could thus assert that Mr. Herring had been disciplined as a consequence of a complaint against the lawn tennis club, and that any objection that he might raise against an application would therefore be based on malice and should be rejected.
Some weeks after the incident, Mr. Herring was made aware that the members of the lawn tennis club, alleging that he had acted in a discreditable manner, made a formal complaint against him. The investigation by the Merseyside police complaints and discipline department was, to say the least, thorough. Numerous statements were obtained, with far more vigour than a more serious complaint would normally receive. On one occasion, Mr. Herring asked for details of the guests at the club, a fact that the police would have known, to help him in the preparation of his defence. That request was denied.
The disciplinary case against Mr. Herring was held in the early part of 1995. Mr. Herring was unable to attend that hearing because of injury. The case proceeded in his absence; and from one incident, he was found guilty of four charges of discreditable conduct.
On 12 June 1995, the chief constable of Merseyside, Sir James Sharples, ordered Mr. Herring to resign from the force. Mr. Herring was also fined. In effect, merely for making a complaint of disorder, he had lost his job and his livelihood.
Is that a reasonable response to such a complaint? If so, will the Home Secretary explain why Inspector Andrew Lathom, who was convicted of assault, was merely reduced in rank? Why was Constable Robert Dunne allowed to retire on medical grounds, having been accused of indecency, only to repeat the offence in retirement and later be convicted? Why was Constable Neil Thompson, who was suspended from duty for fabricating a statement of arrest, later reinstated as, it was said, it was not in the public interest to prosecute? Why was Constable Michael Meadows, who was arrested for twice crashing his motor car while drunk and leaving the scene, only reprimanded?
All the officers guilty of those misdemeanours served Merseyside police. The examples given are not exhaustive; the details given are a matter of record. Can it be said that Mr. Herring's so-called crime of merely complaining about a noisy party—after 20 years of service—ranks above those?
Mr. Herring was devastated. After 20 years of service, and for such a trivial matter, he was now unemployed, financially unstable and completely isolated. With the help of the Police Federation, Mr. Herring appealed. A distinguished panel, including a retired judge and a chief officer of police, heard his appeal. The findings are a matter of record.
Although it accepted that Mr. Herring might have acted over-zealously in his approach, the panel unanimously found in his favour. The panel criticised Merseyside police for the late serving of discipline notices, and for preferring four charges to one global charge. They also criticised the fact that a staff appraisal had been submitted at the hearing, which flew in the face of all other excellent reports—and was, moreover, prepared by an individual whom Mr. Herring had never met. In all, the tribunal felt that Mr. Herring should never have been dismissed, and that, even if he were guilty as charged, he should receive no more than a reprimand.
Mr. Herring's relief was short-lived. The findings were sent to the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who chose to overturn them. Mr. Herring's appeal was dismissed. Mr. Herring firmly believed that that decision was the result of a direct intervention by the chief constable to ensure that he never had the chance to return to work, and thus be a potential irritant to the police on Merseyside.
Unfortunately, that was not the end of the matter. In September 1996, the Blundellsands tennis club held yet another summer ball. Once again, Mr. Herring and his neighbours were disturbed by the noise of the ball. Mr. Herring called the police, and the music was turned down for a while. As the music level rose, Mr. Herring rang the police again, and, receiving no response, appealed to Mr. Smerdon, who, it should be remembered, had been a witness in the disciplinary hearing that led to Mr. Herring's dismissal.
Following the advice of officers in the environmental services department—and fortunately for him, as it transpired—Mr. Herring took the precaution of carrying with him a small, concealed tape recorder so that there could be no dispute about what took place—the noise levels and so on.
After Mr. Herring appealed to Mr. Smerdon, Mr. Smerdon responded by ridiculing Mr. Herring. He belittled him, and even taunted him about freemasons and about his own acquaintance with senior police officers who were also freemasons. Despite that, Mr. Herring acted in a restrained and dignified way, as he had in September 1993. However, just before the police arrived—the police Mr. Herring had summoned—Mr. Smerdon suddenly accused Mr. Herring of spitting in his face. That was nonsense, and all present knew it, including a bystander who commented to that effect at the time.
When the two police officers arrived, they were apprised of the allegation, and immediately demanded that Mr. Herring go with them to the station. Knowing that he had done no wrong, Mr. Herring naturally agreed. Having been told that he was under arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, Mr. Herring was taken to Crosby police station. He was searched, given his rights and placed in a cell. Two hours later, the arresting officer returned with a statement from Mr. Smerdon alleging that he had been assaulted. Mr. Herring denied the offence, and was released without charge, awaiting the decision of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Papers will show that the police decided to pursue the prosecution after noting that Mr. Herring had raised a complaint against them. On 14 February, the case was heard before South Sefton magistrates court in Bootle. In evidence, Mr. Smerdon, who was still unaware of the existence of the tape recording, confidently described how Mr. Herring had sworn and spat at him. He added that he was not given to aggressive behaviour.
Sergeant Foulkes followed Mr. Smerdon. Sergeant Foulkes described how he went to Mr. Herring and did everything according to procedure: how he had cautioned him outside the house, how he had taken hold of Mr. Herring, and how Mr. Herring had verbally objected. The sergeant, when asked whether he was

sure of all the circumstances, was adamant in his response. He was certain that he was telling the absolute truth. He was not mistaken, he could clearly recall the incident, and he was certainly not lying. A second police officer, WPC Martin, who was called to give evidence at a later stage, gave evidence identical in every respect.
At this point, Mr. Herring then introduced to the court his tape recording, which clearly demonstrated that Mr. Smerdon, Sergeant Foulkes and WPC Martin had been lying. Having been told of the tape, Mr. Smerdon was instructed by the court clerk that he was not to inform anyone of its existence. He ignored this instruction and rushed out of the court at the first available opportunity to the lobby outside, saying loudly,
He's taped the whole bloody incident.
In due course, Mr. Smerdon was brought before the court and fined £100 for contempt of court.
The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said that he was "exceptionally calm" and "never swore". The tape revealed that he said:
Bog off, pratt features, piss off.
The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said, "The defendant swore." The tape reveals that the defendant did not swear.
The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said:
Don't you dare push me.
The tape revealed that Mr. Smerdon did not say that. In fact, the defendant said, "Don't touch me." The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said that he told Mr. Ward, the commissionaire for the evening, to call the police if the defendant did not leave immediately. The tape reveals that this conversation did not take place. The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon stated that he was "truthful and honest". That comment is not consistent with the evidence heard on the tape.
The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon stated that, after the spitting incident, he went directly to make a phone call. The tape shows that Mr. Smerdon remained in discussion and made bird noises and impersonations. The court transcript records that Mr. Ward stated that Mr. Smerdon said:
Did you see that man spit at me?
The tape reveals that Mr. Smerdon said:
Did you see that, Sergeant?
The court transcript records that Mr. Ward stated:
I don't recall Smerdon being abusive—didn't hear him swearing.
The tape reveals that Mr. Ward was present when Mr. Smerdon said:
Piss off, bog off, pratt features",
and when he made bird impressions. The court transcript records that Sergeant Foulkes said:
Spoke to defendant opposite club—he came up to me when I pulled up.
The tape reveals that WPC Martin stated that they met in the garden. The court transcript records that Sergeant Foulkes stated on arrival, "Defendant quite happy." The tape reveals that this was not the case. The court transcript records that WPC Martin stated that the music level was quiet. The tape reveals that the music was clearly loud.
The court transcript records that WPC Martin stated:
Defendant seemed to be arguing with Smerdon";
and also:
Smerdon said defendant was glaring and that there was an altercation.
The tape reveals that this was incorrect.
Sergeant Foulkes stated that he had cautioned Mr. Herring and arrested him immediately at the scene—he lied. Both officers said that they had made their detailed pocket notebook entries independently. Clearly, they lied. Both officers said that they had spoken to another witness, Mr. Ward, outside the club premises. Again, they lied.
Following the playing of the tape recording in court, the case collapsed and a new complaint and discipline inquiry began. Mr. Herring, now the complainant, alleged perjury, unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. Sergeant Foulkes said that his arrest took place outside his home address; he lied on oath, as his arrest took place in the police car. When he asked for an outside force to investigate the complaint to ensure impartiality, his request was denied. Only after 14 months, with the direct intervention of myself and a senior member of the Police Complaints Authority, was the inquiry passed to the Lancashire constabulary. An officer of appropriate rank is still to be appointed to investigate the case.
But what have Merseyside police done to address the grave issues raised in Mr. Herring's complaint? Some 15 months after the collapse of the case, Mr. Herring has heard nothing, and the two police officers are still going about their business. Mr. Herring's life has been devastated by the sequence of events, yet he has nothing to show for what has happened to him, except extreme anxiety and a complete and utter loss of health and peace of mind.
I cannot underestimate the consequences of this matter for Mr. Herring's family: they have been truly catastrophic. Having destroyed his life, Merseyside police are seeking to preclude Mr. Herring from gaining access to his pension. It is accepted that such action may be considered only against persons who have committed a grave and serious crime. Is complaining about a noisy party a grave and serious crime?
I seek justice for Mr. Herring. I want the original complaint against him quashed in the light of the fact that one of the key complainants was a known perjurer. I want to know what action Merseyside police intend to take against the two police officers and Mr. Smerdon, and why they did not act earlier. I want to know why an officer who was found guilty of a minor incivility has been dismissed, while other officers, who have committed more serious offences, are treated more leniently. Is the Home Secretary confident that Merseyside police are capable of executing disciplinary procedures in a fair and equitable manner?
I want to know to what extent freemasonry is a factor in Mr. Herring's downfall. It is rare for a person who plays the masonic card to be found out. In this case, a tape recording exists in which Mr. Smerdon is heard invoking the support of the freemasons movement. Has Mr. Smerdon enjoyed the assistance of Merseyside police in other matters? Are we comfortable that police officers

who commit perjury are allowed to work among the public, and may be—and have been—called to give evidence on oath? Is it fair that the Home Secretary should be the final arbiter of police disciplinary and employment matters? Should he have the power to overturn the findings of a tribunal, which is what happened to Mr. Herring?
I note that the Home Secretary has ordered a review of the PCA. I hope that it will consider the issues surrounding the discipline of police officers, the prosecution of police officers who have done wrong, and the role of tribunals and of the Home Secretary. I also hope that an open and fair system of police discipline will emerge for the benefit of other officers, but I suspect that it will be too late to help Mr. Herring.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing the debate, and on her coherent account of a complex matter. It is difficult to provide a response that is both brief and adequate. A short question often deserves a detailed answer. In the little time available to me, I will respond as fully as I can. I will, however, respond in more detail when I write to her. Each question that she asked at the end of her speech could provide a thesis for a chapter of responses.
The issues surrounding police complaints, discipline and corruption are important and complex. The thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is that members of Merseyside police are corrupt and have committed perjury. Those are extremely grave allegations, and, if they can be substantiated, the Government will whole-heartedly support all efforts to bring such people to justice.
My hon. Friend made a general point about the need for a reform of the system. I assure her that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responded to the House on the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Steps are in train to reform and improve the police complaints system and disciplinary procedures.
My hon. Friend specifically mentioned the existence of a tape recording. She underlined the importance of the evidence provided by it. I am informed that, to date, Mr. Herring has not provided that tape to the investigating officer, to the supervising member of the PCA or to an independent professional organisation for analysis. Through my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, I urge Mr. Herring to enable that tape to be examined. It is crucial for the consideration of the points that have been raised.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I want to raise one matter about the investigating officer, who has not yet been appointed. When he or she is appointed, the tape can be submitted, but until then it cannot be.

Mr. Michael: It is a question of the pros and cons of the process. As to the appointment of an officer to undertake the work, there were substantial delays in progressing the investigation, which is regrettable. One difficulty is that, on being told that a chief inspector had been appointed as the investigating officer under the supervision of the PCA, Mr. Herring said that his complaint included officers of a higher rank, and a higher-ranking investigating officer had to be appointed.
I believe that that difficulty has been resolved, in that a complaint against a superintendent has been completed and a report has been made to the PCA. No action will be taken on that report until the allegations against other officers have been dealt with. I understand that Mr. Herring accepted that a chief inspector is of a suitable rank for that investigation. However, a further difficulty has arisen, which suggests that it may be necessary to appoint yet another investigating officer. The PCA therefore set in train the necessary action to find an alternative.
If a complainant fails to co-operate with an investigation within a reasonable time, the PCA will agree to undertake a limited investigation without that co-operation. In this case, the PCA was concerned about the nature of Mr. Herring's allegations, and it was well aware of the potential importance to the investigation of the tape that was made of the incident by the complainant himself.
It is for those reasons that the PCA gave Mr. Herring an exceptional length of time to provide the tape. It also took the unusual step of enabling Mr. Herring to co-operate without handing his tape over to the Merseyside police, which would be the normal way forward. Handing over the tape is crucial for the completion of the inquiry. Two alternatives are open.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. If the hon. Lady wants the Minister—or any other hon. Member—to give way, she should stand up and ask him to do so.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I want to respond to some of the Minister's points. I receive all Mr. Herring's mail, and I am acutely aware of all of the correspondence that he has received and of what it contains. Moreover, because of Mr. Herring's health difficulties, I have undertaken to respond to his mail on his behalf. There have been considerable frustrations about the appointment of an officer of suitable rank, but, as far as I am aware, there are no outstanding matters between Mr. Herring and the PCA.

Mr. Michael: My understanding is that there is one very important piece of outstanding business—the provision of the tape.
Our debate shows that simple questions sometimes need complex answers, and that the Chamber is not always the ideal forum in which to do so. Mr. Herring has two options that will help to progress his complaint. First, if he agrees to meet the new investigating officer and the PCA supervisor to establish the precise complaints that he wishes to be investigated—and if he gives the investigating officer his tape recording of the incident in question—a full investigation will be completed, and the PCA will assess the investigating officer's report to ensure that the work was undertaken thoroughly and impartially. When the PCA is satisfied that that is the case, it will issue an interim statement to that effect.
If there is a possibility of a criminal charge against any officer, the file will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for its consideration and action. If there is no criminal charge, the file will be submitted to

the assistant chief constable of Merseyside police, who will prepare his recommendations for any disciplinary action or training for the relevant officers.
These recommendations and the full file will be submitted to the Police Complaints Authority for a final decision on any disciplinary action.
Secondly, if Mr. Herring does not agree both to a statement clearly specifying his complaints, and to handing over his tapes to the investigating officer, the investigating officer will complete a limited investigation on the information available. In that event, the investigating officer would write to Mr. Herring giving a clear deadline by which his co-operation would be required.
I must reinforce the point that, unless the full evidence is in the hands of the Police Complaints Authority to enable the investigating officer to have possession of that evidence and to be able to undertake his inquiries, it is difficult to understand how progress can be made.
That is only one element of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. I have a great deal of sympathy with Mr. Herring's situation. Whatever the rights and wrongs of his claims, the loss of his job, the stress of the court appearance on an assault charge, the separation from and recent untimely death of his wife are traumas from which recovery will inevitably be painful.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend made a comment that is factually untrue. Mr. Herring was never separated from his wife, although it is true that she suffered an untimely death. That is indicative of the sort of unsubstantiated information that has been passed around about Mr. Herring, and which does nothing to assist his character or reputation.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting that factual information. She raised a debate covering complex and personal issues affecting an individual. She raised that debate in this Chamber, so I must try to respond in this Chamber, but it is not always the best place for proper discussion of complex and personal issues.
It would not be productive in the time available to engage in an argument with my hon. Friend on precisely what happened outside the Blundellsands tennis club on the night of 11 and 12 September 1993. She will appreciate that other points of view exist as to the facts and their interpretation. The Chamber is neither a court of law nor a tribunal, in which different views can be adequately heard and adjudicated upon. That task must be undertaken through the police complaints procedure.
The conclusion of an investigation of the complaint against Mr. Herring led to his being charged with four disciplinary offences. Following the events described, a hearing was arranged for January 1995, when Mr. Herring was represented by counsel, although he himself was unable to attend. There was an adjournment, and in May 1995 the hearing was resumed.
After hearing the evidence, the chief constable found Mr. Herring guilty of all four charges, and there was a further adjournment to allow him to see the most recent appraisal report on him. At the resumed hearing in June 1995, the chief constable, having taken account of the circumstances of the offences, evidence of mitigation and


Mr. Herring's record of service, required him to resign from the force for two of the offences, and fined him for the other two.
That is when Mr. Herring exercised his right of appeal to the Home Secretary. As is normal in the majority of cases, the appeal was referred to a tribunal to inquire into the case. Appeal tribunals comprise three members. They are chaired by a lawyer, usually a QC, and the other two members are a retired chief constable and a retired member of the Police Federation.
My hon. Friend implied that determination of the disciplinary appeal amounts to ratification of the views and recommendations of the tribunal. I assure her from personal experience that that is not so. The statutory position—it is a responsibility in law—is that the Home Secretary is obliged to make his own decision. I can testify from my experience since the general election that that is what actually happens.
In determining the appeal, the Home Secretary took account of the tribunal's views, as he is required to do. He is also required to consider any matters of concern

identified by the tribunal, and I understand that that is what happened. In his view, there was evidence of mistaken information, but, overall and most crucially, he was satisfied that none of the areas of concern identified by the tribunal was such as to have resulted in unfairness to Mr. Herring.
The Home Secretary considered all the material that had been submitted with the appeal, including particulars of the offences, Mr. Herring's record of service and evidence of character, and evidence relating to Mr. Herring's mental state at the time of the incident. Mr. Herring also submitted a letter for consideration in his appeal.
My hon. Friend said that the Home Secretary's decision not to accept the tribunal's recommendation to allow the appeal was suspected to have been the result of direct intervention by the chief constable. I can state categorically—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor was asked—

Official Duties

Mr. Hilton Dawson: What involvement he has had in his official capacity with the city of Lancaster since May 1997.[43495]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): On 1 September last year, I visited Lancaster castle and magistrates courts and had discussions with the chairmen of the advisory sub-committees in Lancashire, lieutenancy staff and local magistrates. Last month, I was present at the installation of Eric Jones as the new constable of Lancaster castle, which was attended by many local dignitaries from the city of Lancaster and the county of Lancashire, and I was delighted to have the company of the two local Members of Parliament.

Mr. Dawson: I thank my right hon.—my thoroughly honourable—Friend for that answer, for the skill and dedication that he has brought to the public service and for the knowledge and commitment that he has demonstrated in his unique role in relation to the Crown, the state and Lancaster. As someone who knows the city well, he will share my delight that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explicitly ruled out any change in the title and function of the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Lancaster is a beautiful city, abundant in history, a cultural gem, and a superb place to visit and in which to invest and do business? Does he further agree. that, when the mayor of Lancaster, the constable of the castle and I plant the red rose of Lancaster—rosa officinalis—in the grounds of Her Majesty's chapel of the Savoy next week, we shall be celebrating not only Lancaster's history but its future as the centre of a vibrant north-west region?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend made sure that we are all aware of his pride, which I share, in the city that he represents and in which I worked for a number of years. I was delighted to be at the installation of Eric Jones who, as a soldier, a trade unionist, a city and county councillor, a magistrate and a freeman of the city, was an ideal candidate for the post of constable. I felt that we were giving a little bit of the castle back to the citizens.

Correspondence

Mr. Colin Pickthall: If he will undertake studies into the quality and timeliness of replies by civil servants to members of the public. [43496]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Departments generally have arrangements in place to monitor the timeliness and quality of replies to correspondence from the public. I intend shortly to place in the Library information on

the performance of the main Departments and agencies in handling such correspondence and against the five other service standards for central Government. This will be the first time that such information has been made available. That shows our commitment to open government and to reporting transparently on our performance.

Mr. Pickthall: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that some responses from civil servants in some Whitehall Departments to members of the public have taken the form of standard letters that are so old as to be irrelevant or are not attached to Government policy? As part of the programme that he outlined, will he encourage monitoring to ensure that replies from civil servants to members of the public are rapid, relevant and at least congruent with Government policy?

Mr. Kilfoyle: As my hon. Friend knows, responsibility lies with the Departments and agencies involved, but if there are such instances—rare, I am sure—and he can give me details, I undertake to ensure that his views are brought before the Ministers responsible for the correspondence concerned.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: After the truly repulsive sycophancy of the question from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), does the Minister agree that it is not civil servants from whom our colleagues have trouble getting replies to letters but Ministers? In his review, which we welcome, will he undertake to draw it to the attention of Ministers and Departments when their standards fall lamentably short of those required by the common decency and courtesy of the House of Commons?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We intend to ensure that Departments that are not meeting their own targets are reminded of them: hence the publication of information about those targets, which is an increasing feature of the openness of this Government. Civil servants, in the main, act according to the directives given them by their political masters. Responsibility falls fairly and squarely on elected politicians to ensure that targets are met and that civil servants are duly motivated.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend is right in his last remarks. Will he therefore examine carefully the habit, into which some Departments fell under the previous Government, of diverting correspondence to several agencies? That is not a good idea and not to be encouraged. Members of Parliament who write on behalf of their constituents are entitled to ministerial replies.

Mr. Kilfoyle: As my hon. Friend asked, I undertake to bring to the attention of the responsible Ministers issues in which she is not getting the satisfactory form of reply that she has every right to expect.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I stress to the hon. Gentleman that it is the timeliness and quality of ministerial replies, which are, after all, often drafted by civil servants, that is causing widespread concern throughout the House. Will he undertake to investigate the time scale in every Department? I had a letter from


the Home Office last week in reply to one sent in February. Such delays are unacceptable. Will he make his inquiries as wide-ranging as possible?

Mr. Kilfoyle: We shall continue to monitor and evaluate the performance of Departments. I stress that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the responsibility of Departments to ensure that the performance targets that they set are met.

Freedom of Information

Maria Eagle: What assessment he has made of the likely interaction between the process of discovery of documentation in civil proceedings or in contemplation of proceedings and the citizen's right to freedom of information where a potential party to proceedings is a Government Department or agency.[43497]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The process of discovery of documents in civil proceedings will not be affected by our freedom of information proposals. Departments that are parties to civil proceedings will not be unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged by freedom of information.

Maria Eagle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that interesting reply. Is he aware that, in parts of Whitehall, there is some resistance to freedom of information? In introducing legislation to implement the new right of information for the citizen, will he be careful to ensure that that right is as wide as the White Paper said that it should be and that it will not be restricted by appeals to the law, and to the civil law in particular, about restrictions that currently apply?

Mr. Kilfoyle: As I said in my original answer, it is absolutely our intention to ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged. Of course we intend to publish the freedom of information Bill in draft. There will be an opportunity then for my hon. Friend to make her representations on any technical or drafting points that may or may not need to be improved.

Mr. Barry Jones: What provision he has made for future consultation on his proposals for freedom of information legislation. [43498]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I shall be publishing a draft Bill for public consultation and consideration by the Select Committee on Public Administration. That will continue the effective and successful process of consultation that began last December.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is it his certainty that, in the lifetime of this Parliament, we shall see legislation enacted?

Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I believe that open government is good government. As a first step towards that, I have produced a radical and ground-breaking White Paper. In our manifesto, we made it clear that we intended to introduce legislation on freedom of information, to sweep away the secrecy that

has hindered good government in this country. I am working with colleagues to ensure that this long-overdue legislation is ready for consideration for inclusion in the Queen's Speech later this year. I emphasise that no one in the House wants to see that implemented more than I do.

Electronic Government

Mr. Neil Gerrard: What assessment he has made of the public response to his proposals for electronic government. [43499]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): Information technology is the key to improving services for everyone in our society. I firmly believe that the emphasis must be on ease of access. Great potential exists for the Government to deliver information and services to our citizens at the time and place of their choosing and by the method that is most convenient to them. I am determined to make the best of the technology on offer to make sure that service in the public sector is not second best to service in the private sector.

Mr. Gerrard: If we are to have Government services delivered by electronic means, is it not important that they are easy to use and accessible? Is my right hon. Friend aware that significant numbers of people still cannot afford computers and that elderly people in particular do not feel comfortable using them? What is he doing to ensure that the needs of those people are not forgotten and that services available electronically are accessible to as many people as possible?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Technology is not an end in itself; it is there to make people's lives easier. I lay great stress on technology improving access for all. I do not want a society of IT haves and have nots to develop. I am formulating a range of initiatives to ensure that that does not happen. I was delighted that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport endorsed that approach. I should point out to the House that, in 10 to 15 years, in an age of digital television, people will have access to services from their own front room as a matter of course. I make the commitment from this Dispatch Box that, at no stage, will we phase in technology without making the paper alternative available for those who are more comfortable with it. We are also conscious that there are difficulties for people with certain types of disability, and we are taking those issues on board.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the Chancellor accept that new technology can obfuscate as much as illuminate? For example, letters can be churned out by computer. The Benefits Agency seems to write to all claimants by computer-processed letters, which often are not clear and do not explain why benefit has not been granted. Will the Chancellor look at that? Often, the most vulnerable people in our society need to have information presented clearly to them and the fact that it is done by new technology does not necessarily make the information any clearer.

Dr. Clark: I would not pretend for a moment that we can conduct Government business without using new


technologies such as computers and processors, but I shall draw to the attention of the Benefits Agency the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I know that it is a matter of concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House; our constituents continually remind us of it.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Any news on Genesis?

Dr. Clark: In the beginning—but my hon. Friend and I both know what he is really talking about. I guess that he is referring to an innovative IT scheme being launched by the county of Cumbria. My Department is working with the county to try to expand the use of that technology, which will revolutionise access to services in Cumbria. Together with my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I was delighted to launch the scheme and to link up two schools which are in the same local authority district, but 100 miles apart. That made me realise the implications of such technology.

Sir George Young: The House may recall recently seeing a photograph of the right hon. Gentleman holding a prototype of an electronic red box. How many of his colleagues have placed a firm order for this device and what improvements in public service should we begin to look out for?

Dr. Clark: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. I hope that he finds it worth while and enjoyable, and that he will have long tenure in it.
The electronic red box, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, is a prototype—

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Ah!

Dr. Clark: The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) recognises that, even if the hon. Gentleman does not. We are now looking at the next prototype, which will be much smaller—the size of a laptop. Within the next few weeks, we hope to be able to share its secrets with the world.
We are now looking at the possibility of biometric recognition—reading a person's iris—to open up the red box. When that is up and running, I believe that it will revolutionise the work of Ministers and ensure that, wherever they are in the world, they will have access to the Government secure intranet.

Internet

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement about the use of the internet by Government Departments. [43500]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I was staggered on coming to office to discover that Government Departments could not communicate with each other electronically; nor could they even e-mail each other. One of my key priorities was to put that right. I recently launched the Government secure intranet, which makes it possible for Government Departments to have safe, controlled and

high-performance access to the internet. For the first time, Government Departments can communicate electronically with each other and also with citizens and business.
More importantly, the service is being used. At the launch of the GSI, just over 4,000 civil servants had e-mail access—that was just six weeks ago. The number has now risen to more than 12,000, and it will continue to increase. By the end of the year, I hope that every Government Department will be connected.

Mr. Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer in respect of Westminster and Whitehall. How can people such as those in my constituency who live in more sparsely populated areas expect the technology revolution to help and empower them, so that they, as citizens, can take part in government to the fullest extent?

Dr. Clark: We are keen to use IT for the benefit of our citizens. I happen to believe that those, such as my hon. Friend's constituents, who live in more rural areas, will be among the main beneficiaries. Instead of having to traipse from one Government office to another—that can often mean from one town to another in rural areas—they will find that information technology, one-stop shops and highly motivated staff will allow them access to Government services across Departments, and even possibly across central and local government, at one point of access.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Would the need for electronic communication be less urgent if more senior Ministers were on speaking terms with each other?

Dr. Clark: Under this Government, Ministers speak to each other both electronically and personally.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend mentioned the number of civil servants with an e-mail address rising from 4,000 to 12,000. What provision is being made to archive e-mail communications, which might otherwise disappear into the ether and be lost to history?

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point and the matter is one with which we have had to wrestle as we develop our freedom of information legislation. We have to try to ensure that electronic communications and electronic records are kept for the record and we are making provisions for that to be done.

Property Holdings

Mr. David Heath: If he plans to require (a) Government Departments and (b) public bodies to establish, maintain and make available to public inspection computer-held terriers of property holdings. [43501]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Individual Departments, agencies and other public bodies are responsible for establishing and maintaining proper records of their property holdings, following central guidance. All such information held by those bodies would come within the scope of the proposed freedom of information Act.

Mr. Heath: Is the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I am at the paucity of information on public bodies' property


holdings? Would not a comprehensive property record held in an appropriate form have the potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs in use, increase occupancy rates and improve services to the public?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there is such as thing as the national assets register, which was published initially on 24 November last year. Details of those assets, including property holdings, are published on the internet and are accessible to the wider public.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there is such as thing as the national assets register, which was published initially on 24 November last year. Details of those assets, including property holdings, are published on the internet and are accessible to the wider public.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Ivor Caplin: If he will make a statement on the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration on the Government's proposals for a freedom of information Act (HC 398). [43502]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I welcome the Committee's report, which sets out a clear general endorsement of our proposals for a freedom of information Act. The report is a key element in the overall consultation process and we are studying all of the Committee's detailed recommendations carefully.

Mr. Caplin: I quote from the PAC report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—which states:
A Freedom of Information Act is long overdue.
We are allowed to quote.

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should read the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.

Mr. Caplin: Conservative Members should know better. Is that not symptomatic of 18 years of Tory rule?
Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give an assurance that the report's 40 or so recommendations and conclusions on freedom of information will be given the utmost consideration in the generation of a freedom of information Bill?

Dr. Clark: I am particularly impressed by the Committee's report, because it raises certain important issues that have not been raised before. For example, its pertinent comments on coverage in Scotland following devolution and the interrelationship between freedom of information and data protection have certainly influenced my thinking.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Chancellor accept that not only the Committee but most people who are anxious to open up and improve the quality of government welcome his White Paper, back his personal commitment to it and hope to see legislation at the earliest possible date? For the timetable on introducing legislation to slip would be a serious setback to the Government's goal of opening up decision making.

Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman has a long record in this area, so I appreciate his kind comments. I repeat what I said earlier: no one in the House is keener than

I am to get the draft Bill on to the statute book. No decision has been taken that will have delayed in any way consideration of that legislation for inclusion in the Queen's Speech later this year.

Elderly People

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What proposals he has to improve the delivery of Government services to the elderly. [43503]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Last week, we launched the better government for older people programme, which aims to improve public services for older people by better meeting their needs, listening to their views and encouraging and recognising their contribution.

Mr. Blizzard: I welcome the better government for elderly people project. When the 28 pilot schemes have been evaluated, will the best examples be rolled out nationwide?
Elderly people in my constituency complain from time to time that they have written to Government Departments and not received a reply. I have encouraged them to make their points through me, but I have sometimes had to wait up to three months for a reply, and then not received a reply signed by a Minister. Before I came to the House, the council that I led had to publish each year the percentage of replies that it had made within a certain period. Will my hon. Friend consider introducing league tables for Government Departments, so that they would reply within specified times?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The short answer to my hon. Friend's question about league tables is no, simply because we would not be comparing like with like. Nevertheless, we are publishing the material that has always been published on the efficiency of replies to hon. Members, and we shall shortly publish for the first time the figures for correspondence between the public and Government.
On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is true that we shall roll out the lessons to be learned from the 28 pilots. Before then, we are networking those 28 authorities with the other 36 authorities that wanted to be part of such an adventurous pilot scheme, but could not be. As the schemes roll out for the first two years, those authorities will also benefit from the good practice.

Mr. Eric Forth: If league tables are good enough for hospitals and schools, why are they not good enough for Government Departments? Following the excellent question from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), will the Minister consider publishing the proportion of ministerial letters that hon. Members eventually get that are not signed by the Minister?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I recall crossing swords with the right hon. Gentleman in the past on the subject of league tables. He will recall that the argument always centred on whether they were meaningful comparisons. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), one cannot compare unlike Departments with each other. The comparisons would not be valid.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he next intends to visit the Macclesfield constituency to discuss his responsibilities for freedom of information in government. [43504]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): Sadly, I have no plans to visit the fair constituency of Macclesfield but, if I were there, I should take great pleasure in highlighting the Government's proud record on their plans for freedom of information.

Mr. Winterton: I am eternally grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that courteous response, but if he visited Macclesfield, I am sure that he would not be surprised to learn that my constituents wonder whether his responsibilities extend to other Government Ministers, such as Baroness Symons, who failed to declare that she had been fully briefed by Customs and Excise on the activities of Sandline before she made her statement in the other place.

Dr. Clark: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is right, and that that is all that people talk about in the constituency of Macclesfield. We already have an independent inquiry into the issue, and we have an effective Select Committee. I am happy and satisfied that those two bodies will get to the truth of the matter.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: When he expects to finalise his proposals relating to freedom of information; and if he will make a statement. [43505]

Dr. David Clark: We are making good progress in turning the policy proposals set out in our radical White Paper on the freedom of information into draft legislation. I greatly welcome the support of the Select Committee on Public Administration in its recent substantial report on our proposals. My colleagues and I are now considering carefully the Committee's detailed recommendations. When we have done so, we shall publish a draft bill, again for consultation with the general public and the Select Committee.

Mr. Canavan: Would not freedom of information be enhanced by ensuring that all Ministers and their permanent under-secretaries told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to Parliament and to parliamentary Select Committees without having to be warned that, if they did not, they will be in contempt of Parliament?

Dr. Clark: Yes.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Do the Chancellor's freedom of information proposals require him to tell the House what witnesses will be called before the Legg inquiry?

Dr. Clark: No, they do not.

Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on his proposals for freedom of information legislation. [43506]

Dr. David Clark: My proposals for a radical freedom of information Act set out in the White Paper "Your Right

to Know" have been widely welcomed both in public consultation and, more recently, in a report by the Select Committee on Public Administration. I am considering those views and will publish a draft Bill as soon as possible to take forward the whole process.

Mr. Chapman: I join the Select Committee in welcoming the proposals for the freedom of information Act. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the radicalism encompassed therein will be carried through when a Bill is brought forward?

Dr. Clark: The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring forward a freedom of information Act, and we shall do that. The White Paper set out our commitment to the basic tenets contained in that document, which remain the same today as when they were published last December. We are currently engaged in translating them into draft legislation so that the Select Committee may examine the Bill word by word and line by line in the pre-legislative stage. That will ensure that, when we bring forward this very complicated legislation, it will not only serve its purpose but be in line legalistically.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Don Touhig: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today. I hope to keep an eye on the Scotland-Brazil game, and I am sure that the whole House joins me in wishing the Scottish and English teams the best of luck in the World cup.

Mr. Touhig: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the statement made by a Conservative that he would be proud to act like a football hooligan in defence of the rights of the hereditary peerage? I am sure that all hon. Members believe that football hooligans are a mindless lot and would want to condemn that statement. Will my right hon. Friend condemn it and, further, assure the House that the Government are determined to end the right of hereditary peers to sit in Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that. It is not just the injustice of hereditary peers sitting in the other place and making laws; there is an in-built majority of three to one in perpetuity for the Conservative party in the House of Lords, irrespective of who wins the general election. The Salisbury convention exists for that very reason and I hope that the Conservative party will not do anything to break it. I challenge the Opposition to deny that they will. If they do break it, that will be the greatest constitutional outrage of all.

Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister has always said that Ministers who knowingly


mislead Parliament must resign. Last month, Baroness Symons said that when she answered questions on 10 March all she knew about an investigation into Sandline was what she had read in a newspaper. We now know from the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office that that was not the case. Has the Prime Minister asked for her resignation?

The Prime Minister: No, I certainly have not. Furthermore, I believe that there is no evidence whatever that Baroness Symons has deliberately misled the House of Lords or anyone else.

Mr. Hague: Does it not concern the Prime Minister that the Foreign Secretary has spoken several times about this affair in the House—the Prime Minister may not be aware of that as he is hardly ever here—yet every answer he has given has implied that no Minister knew about the investigation until mid-April? Is it not absolutely clear from evidence given to the Select Committee yesterday that at least one Minister was informed in early March? Did the Minister fail to tell the Foreign Secretary or did the Foreign Secretary fail to tell the House?

The Prime Minister: No. Neither. First, on the subject of my attendance in the House—I point this out again to the right hon. Gentleman—I have answered more oral questions in my first year of office than did my predecessor in his last year in office. Also, I have made more statements and spent more time answering questions in the House. I say that so that we all get the facts.
As for the Sandline matter, an inquiry is in place. From what I have seen, I repeat that there is no evidence—indeed, there is not a shred of evidence—that any Ministers have deliberately misled anybody, or any evidence in support of the original allegation, which is that they have taken part in a great conspiracy to supply arms in breach of a United Nations arms embargo. There is not a shred of evidence to support that allegation and there never has been. This is simply an example of an Opposition with nothing to say about anything serious.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister obviously hopes that he reaches his reshuffle before the truth catches up with his Ministers. Is not the worst thing about this entire affair what it tells us about the condition of the Foreign Office—a Department of state known for its diplomacy and professionalism that has been reduced in one year to a place where telegrams are sent but never arrive, where answers are given but have to be retracted, where papers are submitted but no one ever reads them and where Ministers do not know what is happening in their own offices, let alone overseas? And it is presided over by a Foreign Secretary who boasts that he does not need to finish the paperwork. Can the Prime Minister put his hand on his heart and say that he is proud of his Foreign Office team?

The Prime Minister: Let me say what those questions indicate about the Opposition. We have India and Pakistan and all the problems of nuclear proliferation. We have Kosovo and instability in the Balkans. The middle east peace process is stalled and we have Eritrea and Ethiopia. We have the upcoming European Union summit.
Those are the issues that I expect the Foreign Office to concentrate on. If we had a serious Opposition, they would concentrate on those issues.

Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week's increase in interest rates was greeted with dismay in areas such as he and I represent, which depend on exports and manufacturing for their prosperity? Is my right hon. Friend just a little afraid that in our two-speed economy employment growth in the hard-hit regions will always be undermined by monetary policy that is aimed at the overheating regions?

The Prime Minister: Of course I understand the concern at any interest rate rise, but the very worst thing that could happen is that by not taking action to produce monetary stability and financial prudence we would return to the conditions that we had under the Conservative Government, when we had interest rates of 15 per cent. for a year, record repossessions, record borrowing and record bankruptcies. That would be the worst thing of all for British industry. There are difficult decisions, but they are the right decisions and we shall continue to pursue the right policies for the long-term strength of the country.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Prime Minister is aware that the decision whether to close four hospitals and a maternity unit in Cornwall now rests entirely with the Secretary of State for Health, and has done since February. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in taking a decision is severely lowering morale and that some staff are seeking alternative employment, which may effectively close the hospitals simply because there is delay in making a decision?
Can the Prime Minister try to speed up the decision so that the four hospitals and the maternity unit can celebrate the 50th anniversary of the national health service in the knowledge that they have a secure future?

The Prime Minister: I speak from memory, but I seem to recall that the chairman of the health authority has indicated that the health authority's original decision was not taken primarily on cost grounds. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that of course we want to ensure that a decision is taken as quickly as possible. There have been many representations about the matter and we want to ensure that the decision is taken in the right way.

Mr. Bill Michie: When my right hon. Friend talks to his ministerial colleagues on the outcome of the consultation paper on the modernisation of local government, will he reflect on previous Governments' attitude that local government is an expensive luxury rather than an essential part of our democratic system? If the Government want people to vote in local elections and value local government, the House should set an example by giving credit where credit is due and refinancing the services that have been devastated for decades.

The Prime Minister: I am happy to pay tribute to the vast majority of local government and local councillors, who do an excellent job on behalf of their local communities. As we have set out recently, it is obviously


why important that we try to modernise the institutions of local government, but we are well aware that local authorities are essential in delivering the best public services for people, which is one reason why we have put additional money into schools for this financial year and hope to put in additional money in future years. We want to decentralise power to them, but we also want to reform and modernise them so that they provide efficiency and best value.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Our first and firm aim, of course, must be for a diplomatic solution in Kosovo, but is not one of the lessons of Bosnia that diplomacy seems to work rather better with President Milosevic if it is backed by a clear and credible threat of compulsion?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with that entirely, and it is precisely why we are trying to arrange the maximum support so that we can take military options should diplomacy fail.

Mr. Ashdown: Then will the Prime Minister confirm that if President Milosevic refuses to respond to calls to silence the heavy weapons that he is using against his own civilian population, the international community might have to do it for him?

The Prime Minister: Certainly that is my view. Obviously, we must build the maximum support in the international community. That is why we are having a series of meetings at the moment, culminating on Friday in a meeting of the G8 Ministers and a meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers. My own view, as I have stated clearly during the last couple of days, is that the only circumstance in which we will ensure that President Milosevic responds to diplomatic pressure is if that is backed up by the credible threat of the use of military force. The sole hurdle that remains in our way at present is obtaining the necessary support for that course of action. We are working as hard as we possibly can. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been having a host of meetings recently, and he will be having more meetings tomorrow and in the next few days to obtain that necessary diplomatic support. If we can do that, we will be in a position to make that diplomacy work, and if it fails we should be in a position to take the military action that is necessary.

Mr. Roger Casale: Knowing my right hon. Friend's interest in tennis, I am sure that we shall soon be seeing him in the Labour-held constituency of Wimbledon for the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet club championships there. While he is there, will he take the time to visit Wimbledon Park first school in my constituency where, thanks to the Government's new deal for schools, all the children are already wired up to computers—[Laughter.]—and even helping their local Member of Parliament track down the Wombles on the internet?

The Prime Minister: I had not realised that our school reform programme has gone quite that far. The £1.3 billion school repairs programme is helping us to get the internet and new technology into schools. That is tremendously important because our children need those skills for the future. They were denied them for a long

time. The purpose of the programme is to allow schools to carry out the repairs that they need, which is often important if they want to build better classrooms and install new technology. That is precisely what will give our children the best chance of education in the future.

Mr. Richard Spring: Quite apart from the fact that waiting lists are rising, is the Prime Minister aware that full ambulance cover was recently withdrawn in the largest town in my constituency, Haverhill? Is he also aware that for the first time in the history of the county of Suffolk school budgets are being cut across the board? Does the Prime Minister understand the growing disillusion about his failed promises on health and education, or does he merely dismiss my constituents' anxieties as "overblown hoo-hah"?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not dismiss them at all. I can tell the hon. Gentleman's constituents that we are putting more money into Suffolk—in hospitals and in schools—than the Government the hon. Gentleman supported planned to put in and, if we take the right decisions on public spending, we shall get more money still over the next few years. We shall meet our pledge on waiting lists and, after 10 years of rising class sizes under a Conservative Government, we shall get class sizes down.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Almost one in six of the people who have visited me in my constituency surgeries over the past year have been from the hard-pressed agriculture community. Does the Prime Minister agree, on hearing the remarks of Ben Gill, who is also a North Yorkshire farmer, that today's success in Brussels on the recommendation to lift the ban on British beef is due to the patient diplomacy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—[Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but the concerns of many of my constituents are founded on the failure of Conservative policies over 18 years. All credit should be given to my right hon. Friend.

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done on behalf of the farming industry. The decision to lift the ban in respect of Northern Ireland was an important first step; the Commission's decision today is a very important further step because it applies to the whole of the UK. However, there is still a long way to go and I counsel caution until we are through all the various stages of the European negotiations. It is right to point out, however, that not only did the previous Government give us the BSE crisis; they ended up causing what has probably been the most diplomatically disastrous episode in the country's history.

Mr. William Hague: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to figures from the Library, a typical family is more than £1,000 a year worse off through tax and mortgage increases since the Government came to office? Is he also aware that Treasury Ministers have so far refused to publish official figures on that subject, presumably because they are scared to do so? Will he instruct the Treasury to publish up-to-date figures showing the tax burden on families?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Treasury Ministers have published the figures.
As a result of the decisions that we have taken, we have managed to get rid of the huge Budget deficit that we inherited from the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman is right: the interest rate decisions have been difficult for people. The alternative—the policy proposed by his party—was no interest rate rises at all and no action to cut the deficit. Under the policies proposed by his party on the Finance and Social Security Bills, there would have been an extra £6 billion-worth of spending. Those are precisely the policies that would have returned us to Tory boom and bust which, thank goodness, we are escaping.

Mr. Hague: How can the Prime Minister say that Treasury Ministers have published such figures when they have not, and everyone knows that they have not? We have now seen tax increases for pension fund holders, home owners, married couples, businesses, and now even for charity aid workers overseas. That is from a Prime Minister who said at the election that there would be no tax increases at all. Now the Government plan more taxes for people who drive cars, for people who park cars and, incredibly, for people who put out the rubbish. Is it not bad enough that the Prime Minister breaks all his early pledges without taxing people who put them in the bin? If he is to impose all those new taxes, should not he at least publish the figures that show what the tax burden on families will be?

The Prime Minister: The rubbish that has just been recycled comes from the right hon. Gentleman. The measures that we have taken have been absolutely necessary to cut the Budget deficit. The choice is simple: either leave the huge borrowing and national debt that we inherited from the Conservative Government, which would put inflation back in the system and give us cycles of boom and bust again, or take the decisions that we have taken. We have taken the right decisions in the interests of the country. Long-term interest rates are now down to their lowest level since we last won the World cup. Those decisions have been difficult, but they have been absolutely necessary to deal with the economic situation and to ensure that we have the long-term stability that the country needs.

Mr. Hague: Does it not come to something when, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister cannot even answer a straightforward question, such as whether he will publish a set of figures that until last year had been published for the past 17 years? The fact that the Government will not publish the figures shows that they are not straight with people about taxes. His pledges on taxes, which have gone up, are like his pledges on waiting lists, class sizes and inflation, all of which have gone up. Does he not understand that when he made those pledges people expected him to keep them and not to do the opposite?

The Prime Minister: We shall keep each of the pledges that we made. [HoN. MEMBERS: "When?"] After years of rising waiting lists and rising class sizes under the Conservatives, we shall get them down. We are taking measures to ensure that we squeeze inflation out of the economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Now. We are taking the measures now to tackle the Budget deficit. As for broken promises, we remember the last Conservative Government. We remember the right hon. Gentleman and

his colleagues who now occupy the Opposition Front Bench going into an election promising that they would never raise VAT and then raising it straight after the election. We remember them and their 22 tax rises that they promised they would never make. The Labour party made promises on tax, waiting lists and class sizes; when we go into the next election we shall have kept every single one of them.

Angela Smith: May I refer the Prime Minister to today's report of the Office for Standards in Education, which shows that under the Tory Government the gap between the best and the poorest schools grew wider? May I also refer him to Essex county council, where the Tories lost a by-election in Basildon last week largely because of their poor record on education? The council has cut £3 million from the education budget and has closed schools in Basildon. The public know that they can trust Labour on education—not the Tories.

The Prime Minister: I am pleased to say that there is strong evidence that standards are getting better, but we are concerned about the widening gap between the best schools and those down at the bottom of the list. It is important to put investment into our schools, which we have done this year and hope to do again in future years, and to combine that with reform to tackle failing schools. We need to reform the structure of the teaching profession to get the best possible people into teaching, to maintain a school repairs programme to give our schools the facilities they need and to replace the nursery voucher system with proper nursery education. We have a programme of investment and reform that I believe over the medium and long term will give this country exactly what it needs: the best skilled and educated work force that we can possibly achieve.

Mr. John Wilkinson: How many jobs does the Prime Minister believe will be lost in this country as a consequence of the withdrawal of the concession on duty-free goods for travellers by air and sea within the European Union, which was somewhat impetuously agreed by the previous Government and quite culpably confirmed by the present Administration, against the wishes of Labour as well as Conservative Members? How can the British people have faith that the UK presidency will protect their interests on this matter, on EU tax on arts sales in this country and on the issue of withholding tax on savings?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's purpose was probably more to attack the previous Government's record on Europe than ours.
It is extraordinary of Conservatives to come after us on duty free. In 1991, they agreed to the abolition. That abolition can be overturned only if all the other European Union countries agree to overturn it, and the majority have indicated that there is no prospect of their supporting such a move. It would be dishonest of us to pretend that we can get something changed when, as a result of a measure agreed by the previous Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported—well, more or less—we cannot. That is the truthful position. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make any proper complaint, I am afraid that he will have to direct it at the previous Government.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Last Wednesday, we heard a good deal in the Chamber about


corruption in local government. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this Government will take tough action to stamp out corruption wherever it occurs, and whichever party is in power?
Does the Prime Minister recall the former leader of the Conservative party saying, in May 1995, that the party would condemn proven cases of malpractice and individuals found guilty in courts of law? In spite of that, when, six months ago, Dame Shirley Porter was found to have lied to the High Court and to the district auditor, we heard not a word from the Leader of the Opposition. Is it not about time that the Tories came off the fence, stopped prevaricating and gave us some answers about the scandal in their back yard?

The Prime Minister: We shall be vigilant against corruption, from whatever quarter it comes. I will simply say that, after all the scandals involving Westminster council, we have still heard not one word of condemnation, not one word of apology and not one hint of action from the Conservative party.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: About eight weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment told Derbyshire county council that it could have an extra £1 million to spend on reducing class sizes. This week, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he was capping Derbyshire to the tune of £1 million. It will cost more than £500,000 to re-bill every household in Derbyshire as a result of the Deputy Prime Minister's decision. Can the Prime Minister explain the logic of that?

The Prime Minister: In fact, Derbyshire received £2.9 million more specifically for education, and it is receiving a great deal more than it could possibly have received under the spending plans on which the hon. Gentleman fought the last election. He is the last person who is able to attack the position with any credibility.

Mr. Ben Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, as elsewhere, vulnerable witnesses—at least one in 10, according to some estimates—are often subject to harassment and victimisation? Is he aware that that has an adverse effect on the administration of justice? Does he, like me, welcome the publication of a report today and the consultation period that will follow it, while also feeling that what we need is action—and soon?

The Prime Minister: The protection of witnesses is of concern throughout the House. Today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a report containing more than 70 recommendations to improve the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated by the criminal justice system. They include more protection for rape victims, new measures to help child witnesses and greater use of technology such as closed-circuit television to help those who are vulnerable and may be subject to intimidation. I hope that, as a result of the

report's recommendations, we shall be able to reduce the intimidation of witnesses. That would play a major part in securing more convictions.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: When does the Prime Minister intend to keep his promise—published in The Licensee and Morning Advertiser on 1 May 1997—to conduct a full, comprehensive and independent review of smuggling and illegal cross-border shopping involving tobacco and alcohol?

The Prime Minister: We are carrying out that commitment. Within the European Union, as well as on our own account, we are taking concerted action to try to reduce such activity. We are well aware of the problem, but it can be tackled only if we are prepared to tackle it not just in our own country but across our borders.

Mr. Tony McNulty: What would be my right hon. Friend's reaction if a Member on the Government Front Bench advocated the legalisation of crack, heroin or Ecstasy? Is the cause of the war against drugs helped or hindered by the existence of such an advocate on the Opposition Front Bench—in the shadow health team of all areas—or is it time for the Leader of the Opposition to reflect on his lamentable choice of personnel?

The Prime Minister: I am a little in two minds about that since I think it is probably in our interests for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to remain on the Opposition Front Bench. It is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to legalise drugs.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Is the Prime Minister aware that serious concerns are being expressed by general practitioners in my constituency and throughout the country about the introduction of primary care groups and the risk to general medical services funds which could devastate the further development of a primary care-led national health service? Will the Prime Minister hold a ballot of GPs on this issue and take lessons from the previous Conservative Government on giving GPs the opportunity to put the best interests of their patients first?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady must forgive me if I am a little hesitant about taking lessons on the NHS from the Conservative Government. There are concerns among GPs, including concerns about their budgets, and they are being discussed actively with them by the Health Minister. In the end, it is important to take decisions about the health service working, of course, in partnership with doctors and nurses and others who work in the national health service. Those decisions should be taken in the interests of the national health service as a whole to ensure that it delivers the best service for people. The purpose of the primary care groups is to ensure that we do not have a two-tier system, as we had under the Government the hon. Lady supported. We are also making the best use of the resources that go into the national health service—which, of course, have been increased under this Government, not cut.

Points of Order

Mr. Francis Maude: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise the issue of resources for the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, especially in relation to the burden that has been placed on it by the Paymaster General's affairs.
You will know, Madam Speaker, that the commissioner has already completed one investigation into the Paymaster General's offshore Orion trust and its dealings in the shares of Coventry City football club. There are two further investigations: one into his undeclared directorship of Swiss EDM Ltd., and one into his apparently undeclared directorships of three companies in the Robert Maxwell empire. To those three investigations has been added today a fourth complaint about two Italian property companies that are owned by the Paymaster General and of which he has been a director. It is clear that that level of activity was not envisaged when Sir Gordon Downey's office was set up. I raise this point of order to ensure that sufficient resources are available to the commissioner to enable him to carry out his investigations thoroughly and with expedition. The investigations that are already under way have so far taken three months—

Madam Speaker: Order. I regret having to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but, for a number of days, I have taken points of order that have become speeches, and I am not prepared to listen to long speeches any more. I think that I have the gist of the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises. The matter is for the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It has always been clear that it is open to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to seek additional resources when, in his judgment, that is necessary to enable him to carry out his duties. If he needs more resources, all that he has to do is to apply to me, and I shall see that he has the resources to carry out his job correctly.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the custom in the House that when individual Members are to be named by others they should be given written notification?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite correct. May I inquire whether the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) gave the Minister notice?

Mr. Maude: I did not, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.] If I should have done so I apologise.

Madam Speaker: Let me make it quite clear that all Members—Front Benchers, Ministers, whoever they

are—must notify an hon. Member when they intend to refer to him or her. Thank you, Mrs. Dunwoody, for reminding me of that.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday, the Government announced that they were to cap Derbyshire county council. They also said in the press announcement that a Committee would meet on Thursday—tomorrow—to consider the matter.
The Committee of Selection has not yet appointed any Members to that Committee, because it has not met. Indeed, the capping order was not included on the Committee of Selection's original agenda. The Committee of Selection is not due to meet until this afternoon. That means that any Members appointed by it will not be notified of their appointment until tomorrow morning, when the Committee considering the capping order is due to meet.
As a result of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, I have tabled some written questions which will be important to facilitating the debate. Unfortunately, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has not yet answered them. Is that really fair? Does the Government's taking of such a measure in Committee in the same week as the measure is announced allow for scrutiny? This is the first time in memory and on record that capping matters have not been debated on the Floor of the House.

Madam Speaker: I was very pleased to be able to call the hon. Gentleman during Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon, when he was quite rightly able to raise matters that concern his area. He may seek to catch my eye tomorrow to put a question to the Leader of the House when she answers questions on the progress of parliamentary business. I understand that no Standing Orders have been breached by what he has described, although I have some sympathy for him. He may, of course, wish to pursue the matter through the usual channels—of which he is himself a member, I believe.

BILL PRESENTED

PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE AND HOME INSULATION

Mr. Simon Hughes presented a Bill to require certain health bodies to draw up reports on the ways in which home insulation may assist persons living in fuel poverty to heat their homes, in order to reduce ill-health and unnecessary demand for health services; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 200].

Restoration of Damage to Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Ms Candy Atherton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to require the owners and occupiers of land notified as sites of special scientific interest who commit an offence under section 28 of the Act to restore that interest of the site lost, damaged or degraded as a result of the offence or offences.
Sites of special scientific interest are the foundations of wildlife protection in Great Britain. Introduced in their present form by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, their purpose is to give special safeguard to the most valuable parts of our much reduced, but still rich, natural heritage. I am sorry to have to tell the House that they are failing adequately to protect Britain's finest wildlife sites.
SSSIs contain Britain's finest and most precious examples of wildlife habitats, landscape and geological features. English Nature describes them as the core of our nation's national heritage. There are about 6,000 sites in Britain today. I had the good fortune to visit an SSSI in Cornwall two weeks ago. Marazion marshes is a reserve of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and home to 1,314 species of plants and animals. In fact, it is the largest remaining reed swamp in Cornwall, and, as such, a key area of biodiversity. Apart from plants and birds, more than half the British species of dragonflies are recorded there.
It concerns me greatly that that site is one of the lucky ones. When the RSPB took over management of the reserve, the reed bed had dried out and wildlife interest was being lost. The site is now voluntarily managed, with the co-operation of a sympathetic landowner. Other sites are not managed so sympathetically and are allowed to degenerate, with the resulting loss of wildlife interest.
Statutory nature conservation bodies have to date reported a total of more than 2,120 cases of loss or damage of SSSIs in England and Wales in the past six years alone; yet there have been very few prosecutions. When there have been prosecutions, the fines levied have been disproportionately low.
Kernick and Ottery meadows—which is also in Cornwall—is a grassland area which was notified as an SSSI in 1992. Although part of the site had been ploughed, English Nature believed that it was capable of recovery. Nevertheless, despite SSSI notification, the ploughed area was drained, reseeded and planted with linseed for fibre flax production. English Nature took no action. Protection of the remainder of the site under a nature conservation order has not prevented considerable damage—such as drain installation, damage to hedge banks and grubbing of valuable scrub. Again, English Nature took no action.
If I had more time for this motion, I could detail horror stories from across the country.
The problem is that penalties for damaging SSSIs are painfully lacking and do not constitute any real deterrent. Currently, a landowner planning to conduct a potentially damaging operation must give four months' notice, giving the conservation agency a chance to persuade and to negotiate a voluntary management agreement. Agencies also can offer payment to compensate landowners for any profit lost by not developing a site.
If a landowner does not give due notice and damages a site, he or she is liable to a fine of up to £2,000. However, in practice, fines have varied from only £200—for lime spreading—to £1,500, for extraction of sand and shingles. It is notable that, despite many offences, there have been very few convictions for damaging SSSIs. Fines do not provide an adequate deterrent.
Understandably, statutory nature conservation bodies see little point in pursuing expensive court cases. If they win a conviction, damage to the site remains, and the bodies have little means to repair the damage. In contrast, contravention of a tree preservation order can result in a fine of up to £12,000; and damage to a listed building is punishable with a maximum 12 months' prison sentence and a fine that takes into account any benefit accrued to the offender because of the damage. Clearly, unscrupulous landowners have merely to consider the risk and to take their chances. Many landowners are effectively smashing and grabbing.
Legislation must be strengthened if the SSSI network is to have any real chance of safeguarding our most precious wildlife resources. Landowners who damage an SSSI should be made to restore the site at their own expense. That is the aim of my Bill.
Currently, only in limited circumstances do courts have power to compel a landowner to undertake restorative measures on an SSSI that he or she is found guilty of damaging. Experience has shown that issuing a nature conservation order—creating what has been termed a "super-SSSI"—is of limited practical use. Although such orders allow courts to order an offender to take restorative action to reinstate a site's interests, such action is not commonplace. Since the 1981 Act was passed, the power to impose such orders has been invoked in England on only 26 occasions. Moreover, no restoration orders have ever been issued.
My Bill would give courts the power, under section 28 of the Act, to place restoration orders on offenders who damage standard SSSIs. I believe that that would be a just power to give to the courts. Such power would provide a better deterrent—avoiding damage in the first place—as the cost of restoring sites can be extremely expensive, and an incentive to statutory nature conservation bodies to pursue offences through the courts. It would also be consistent with the "polluter pays" principle.
I realise that it may not always be reasonable or practicable to restore a site to its former condition. My Bill proposes that, in such cases, courts should be given discretion in requiring restoration of sites to an appropriate specified condition.
I am delighted to be able to inform the House that yesterday, with the RSPB, I met the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), and she has promised that the aim of my Bill has been drafted into the Government's planned consultation document on the environment.
I want our children and our children's children to have the same opportunities that I had two weeks ago to visit and experience areas of great natural beauty. Of the cases that I have mentioned, Marazion marshes were lucky; Kernick and Ottery meadows were not. We must not leave the future of those recognised sites to the haphazard and uncertain hand of fate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Candy Atherton, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. David Drew, Ms Julia Drown, Ms Tess Kingham, Mr. David Prior, Mr. John Randall, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Mr. John Austin.

RESTORATION OF DAMAGE TO SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Ms Candy Atherton accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to require the owners and occupiers of land notified as sites of special scientific interest who commit an offence under section 28 of the Act to restore that interest of the site lost, damaged or degraded as a result of the offence or offences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 201.]

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The aim of the Bill is to bring into effect proposals in the Good Friday agreement dealing with prisoners. Prisoner issues are part of that agreement—he commitment given by both Governments was to put in place mechanisms for an accelerated programme of prisoner release. In our case, that applies to prisoners convicted of scheduled offences—that is, offences connected with paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland and those outside Northern Ireland convicted of similar offences. We gave a commitment in the agreement that we would seek to enact the appropriate legislation by the end of June.
The agreement is a package, supported by parties and the people, and it is a whole and not to be cheny-picked. The package won the support of more than 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland on 22 May, in both communities. As we discussed in the House on Monday last week, I know that there is much concern among those who voted yes and those who voted no about the actual details. We have a duty to people to implement the people's wishes, but, at the same time, to do our best to address those concerns.
I believe that the agreement is the best chance that we have to bring an end to the vicious cycle of violence and murder in Northern Ireland and to ensure that new generations do not continue to suffer all the grief and pain of the past.
On 20 April, I placed in the Library of the House a paper that set out in detail how the Government intended to implement our commitment in relation to prisoners. That paper set out the rigorous safeguards for the protection of the public. Those safeguards are now on the face of the Bill. For example, prisoners who support terrorist groups that continue to engage in violence or return to violence will not be released. Prisoners will be released on licence and immediately recalled if they engage in any terrorist activity.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Bill actually states that prisoners will be released if they are not likely to be
concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Given the international nature of terrorism—Sean O'Callaghan's recent book shows the links between the IRA and ETA—will the Secretary of State amend the Bill so that it covers, as she just stated, any acts of terrorism, rather than those solely relating to Northern Ireland?

Marjorie Mowlam: I will take note of the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Bill relates specifically to terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. If there is any question about the interpretation, we shall certainly check it with the draftspeople.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In Scotland, when a prisoner is released under licence,


he or she has to be of good behaviour, and can be put back in prison if convicted of a criminal offence. Should not the same hold in these circumstances?

Marjorie Mowlam: It does. Many safeguards are built in and, as we go through the Bill, we will see that it is robust. If released prisoners break the licence in any way, they will be taken back and will serve their full sentence. As a further safeguard, if circumstances deteriorate in Northern Ireland, the programme of release will be stopped and no prisoners will be released.
If an organisation has returned to violence, licensed prisoners who continue to support that organisation can be recalled. The Government's commitments have been made in the context of a lasting peaceful settlement. In his speech at Balmoral on 14 May, during the referendum campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if parties are to benefit from accelerated release, their commitment to democratic, non-violent means must be established in an objective, meaningful and verifiable way.
The Prime Minister said that in clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement had been met and violence had genuinely been given up for good, a range of factors had to be taken into account: whether an organisation is committed to the use, now and in future, of only democratic and peaceful means of achieving its objectives; whether it has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or preparations for violence and is not directing or promoting such acts committed by other organisations; and whether it is co-operating fully with the decommissioning body. Those factors are all in the Bill.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was the result of the Prime Minister's representations to my right hon. Friend about the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright? Representations were also made by such careful lawyers as Lord Ackner, who does not make statements wildly.

Marjorie Mowlam: The Prime Minister made a statement to the House, and we have discussed the cases before. At the moment, I am responding to the judicial review of the decision that I took some months ago. When the review is complete, I shall report back to my hon. Friend and to the House. I assure him that 1 am taking the matter seriously and that it will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would I be wrong in interpreting the Bill to mean that the early release scheme would include members of the armed forces who have been convicted of scheduled offences?

Marjorie Mowlam: Members of the armed forces, if they so choose, can apply as anyone else would.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: The Bill explicitly refers to membership of terrorist organisations and defines such organisations. It has nothing whatever to do with members of the armed services.

Marjorie Mowlam: As I said, it is up to those concerned whether they want to apply. The provisions relate to scheduled offences and, although members of the armed forces, not being part of a terrorist organisation,

are not referred to specifically, I presume that, if they want to go to the commission, they can present their case; as the hon. Gentleman suggested, they may not choose to do so. The guardsmen's sentence is up for review before the Life Sentence Review Board in October, and that is the state of play.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Lady mentioned what the Prime Minister said when he was in Northern Ireland. He also said that violence had to be given up and that decommissioning is part of that. Is decommissioning part of her definition of violence being given up—so that these people can be let out of prison?

Marjorie Mowlam: The four factors that the Prime Minister outlined in his speech in Belfast on 14 May are central to deciding whether an organisation is on a ceasefire and committed to establishing and maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. The Prime Minister outlined four criteria covering a commitment to democratic peaceful means; involvement in any acts of violence or preparation of acts of violence; the use of proxy organisations; and full co-operation with the independent body on decommissioning. Those are the criteria on which I will judge whether a group is on a ceasefire.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who has been generous with her time. This issue is particularly important. She talks about the judgment that she must make about terrorist organisations or political parties involved with terrorist organisations and violence. She knows that punishment beatings, and some murders, have continued throughout the process. Two people were kneecapped, an easy term for a brutal event, in west Belfast last week, probably by IRA-linked, Sinn Fein-linked terrorists. In her judgment, will she take that, and punishment beatings by loyalists, into account?

Marjorie Mowlam: It is clear that I will make a judgment on the four factors, in which are included punishment beatings and the instigation of paramilitary activity. That is one of the factors that, in the round, will be part of that judgment. Like the hon. Gentleman, I find punishment beatings obscene. He mentioned two people. The weekend before that, three weeks ago, a 72-year-old man had both his legs taken out. A week ago, a Protestant man was so badly beaten that people were unsure that he would not bleed to death. They are obscene acts which must stop if we are serious about the process moving forward. They went on under all previous Governments. We have reached a new point where we have the consent of the people on the agreement. We should go forward in a positive way to build trust and confidence on both sides so that decommissioning and the other aspects of the agreement can move in parallel.
If the House will permit me, I should like to make some progress. In answer to a question, I listed the four factors that will be taken into account in an overall judgment on whether a complete and unequivocal ceasefire is actually happening.
Early prisoner releases are not new in Northern Ireland. There already exist arrangements for early prisoner release, set up at the end of 1995 by the previous Government. They entitle fixed-sentence prisoners to be released halfway


through their sentences. Under those arrangements, approximately 240 prisoners have been released early. Of those, only two have had to be recalled for breach of their licences. The previous Government continued the policy despite the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire between February 1996 and July 1997. Even if there were no change in the law, about half the remaining prisoners covered by the new scheme would be free within the next two years.
There is no doubt that the prisoner issue has long been an important part of the search for peace in Northern Ireland. Successive British Governments have recognised that fact. When passing the legislation that is the forerunner of the Bill in 1995, my predecessor, Lord Mayhew, said:
It is desirable that, in the light of the changed situation brought about by the ceasefires, the Government, in this field as in others, should not seem reluctant to respond in a positive manner".—[Official Report, 30 October 1995; Vol. 265, c. 23.]
I agree. We supported and aided the swift passage of that legislation because we considered that it was a proportionate response to the ceasefire at the time.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: May I make something clear so that there is no misunderstanding? Completely unintentionally, I think that the right hon. Lady has misled the House. The previous Government's legislation that altered the time at which prisoners were released was merely to bring Northern Ireland back into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, so it would be wrong to define it as early release.

Marjorie Mowlam: In quoting my predecessor, so that I would not mislead the House, I was pointing out that there was an acknowledgement that changes in prison sentencing were needed as part of the overall agreement. As the previous Government tried to move the process forward, even when there was no decommissioning or ceasefire, they kept the scheme in place. I am not attempting to mislead the House in any way. I am trying to say that prisoner releases are not necessarily a terribly new process and that we are continuing some of the procedures that were already in place.
I should like to move on. Some people argue that we should never release any prisoners—under the previous scheme or under this one. I have to say that this is a difficult issue. In the past couple of weeks, I have heard from many people in Northern Ireland, including many families of victims, who have said that they find it deeply difficult and disturbing to cope with what is happening. That is true for them and very, very difficult. It is harder for them because, as we face change, they are worried that the deaths of their loved ones will be forgotten. We have done all that we can to listen to them and take into account their views. Some of them will never be able to come to terms with what is happening.
Other people who have written to me or come to see me say that, yes, they find it difficult, but that if it means that others do not have to go through what they have gone through, they will not come out against what the Government are trying to achieve.

Mr. John Greenway: As one of the Members of Parliament in the Secretary of State's region, may I pay tribute to the work that she has done? One of

the worst tragedies on the mainland was the murder some years ago of Special Constable Glen Goodman by the IRA terrorist Paul Magee, who was transferred recently from Full Sutton prison, where he was serving a life sentence for murder, not to Northern Ireland but to the Republic of Ireland. I understand that the Bill does not deal with Republic of Ireland prisoners. Nor could it. Can she reassure the North Yorkshire community that someone whom the Home Secretary said ought to serve a minimum of 30 years will not be released? The community has still not come to terms with the atrocity of what happened five years ago, let alone the prospect that Paul Magee could be let out early.

Marjorie Mowlam: Paul Magee was transferred, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, in line with the policy adopted by the Conservative Government and mine that prisoners should be close to their families so that their families can see them, and their children do not suffer unnecessarily. Before the Home Secretary transferred Magee and others, he obtained an agreement from the Minister of Justice in the Republic that the sentence would remain as it was. That commitment was made to the Home Secretary, and I repeat it here for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has raised an important matter. Would that convicted terrorist be allowed under the Bill and the arrangements to be transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland in order to qualify for release?

Marjorie Mowlam: He is a prisoner in the Republic. He could apply for transfer, but it is unlikely that the movement would take place. We accept transfers on the basis that they bring the prisoner closer to his family. Paul Magee is a prime example of someone whose family is not in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The Secretary of State will be aware that if a Metropolitan policeman is murdered in the course of a felony, the murderer has to serve a minimum sentence of 26 years. In the Republic of Ireland, someone who murders a Garda Siochana in the same circumstances serves a minimum of 40 years. As 299 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been murdered in the course of their duties, can she explain why the Bill should provide for the release of some of the murderers, even within the terms of the 12 to 16 years that murderers commonly serve in Northern Ireland? Will she also confirm—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is an enormously long intervention, and many Members are seeking to catch my eye. I would ask now for a response from the Minister.

Marjorie Mowlam: Cases being considered under this legislation will go to the independent commissioners, who will look at them carefully, assess them in detail and be given additional information. Prisoners will be let out only on licence, and very clear conditions will attach to the releases.
All we are doing is implementing the agreement, which gained the support of 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland in the vote.
Under the Bill, prisoners may apply to the commissioners for a declaration that they are entitled to be released on licence. The Bill sets out criteria that prisoners must satisfy to be eligible for release.
The Bill requires that I appoint commissioners and have regard to the desirability of the commissioners as a group commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. In addition, I am required so far as is reasonably practicable to ensure that at least one commissioner is a lawyer and at least one is a psychiatrist or psychologist.
I would intend to appoint a psychiatrist or psychologist with expertise in risk assessment in criminal cases. In the rules of procedure that I may make under the Bill, I will require that a commissioner with such expertise would sit on panels considering applications from life sentence prisoners.
The commissioners will consider each application on its merits against the criteria set out in the Bill. If those criteria are met, the commissioners will declare that a prisoner is eligible under the scheme. The criteria are as follows: prisoners in Northern Ireland must have been convicted of a scheduled offence committed before 10 April 1998 and sentenced to five years or more or life imprisonment. Only prisoners serving their sentence in Northern Ireland are eligible for release under the Bill.
A prisoner must not be a supporter of a terrorist organisation of the kind specified in the Bill, which means organisations that
have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal cease-fire".
That test follows directly from the words of the agreement, which exclude prisoners affiliated to such organisations.
This legislation will not remove the ban on organisations that are proscribed under our anti-terrorist laws. The IRA or UDA, for example, will continue to be proscribed, and membership of such organisations will continue to be a criminal offence.
A prisoner may not be declared eligible for early release if the commissioners consider that, if released immediately, he or she would be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or become concerned in the initiation, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. That means that no prisoner who the commissioners believe will return to violence may be released under the Bill.
Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment would not be released if they would be considered a danger to the public. That maintains the protection that applies in respect of the release of all life sentence prisoners throughout the UK.

Mr. Dominic Grieve.: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: Two other hon. Members have indicated that they wish to intervene, but I want to make a little more progress before giving way.
I shall keep under review the list of organisations identified under the Bill and add or remove organisations as appropriate. As my right hon. Friend the Prime

Minister said in his speech of 14 May, considering whether a ceasefire is being maintained is
a judgment which will necessarily become more rigorous over time"—
and it will.

Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that all the lawyers appointed to be commissioners will be United Kingdom lawyers and not those from other jurisdictions?

Marjorie Mowlam: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not want to tie myself down in that way. We want to appoint, as clause 1 of the Bill states, a psychiatrist or psychologist and a lawyer with expertise. It is 99 per cent. likely that a lawyer with expertise in our criminal legal system would be of UK origin, so I can give the hon. Gentleman that much reassurance. However, I am more keen to ensure that we have a balanced, independent body, including a lawyer and a psychiatrist or psychologist, which people can trust and respect. The body has not yet been selected and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, all the parties in Northern Ireland can submit nominations for bodies of that nature; I look forward to receiving the nominations from his party.
If the commissioners declare that a fixed-term prisoner meets the criteria set out in the legislation, the prisoner will be required to serve one third of his sentence in custody before being released on licence.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: To be fair, I shall take the intervention from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) before that of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady. I wanted clarification of a point relating to the transfer of prisoners to the Republic. Some of those transferred to the Republic, such as the Balcombe street gang, had full life tariffs, because it was considered that they were so dangerous that they should never be released. Am I correct in my understanding of the effect of transferring them to the Republic, which is that they escape completely the criteria under the legislation for consideration as to the likely danger they pose to the public, and that they will simply be released in two years' time, pursuant to the agreement?

Marjorie Mowlam: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the Republic has its own criteria; however, when the Home Secretary transferred prisoners to the Republic, he made it clear that he would do so only if the Minister of Justice gave an assurance that the full tariffs would be served. That is my understanding of what has happened.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State was explaining to the House that a prisoner belonging to a proscribed organisation, for example the Provisional IRA, could openly inform the commission that he or she is a member of the Provisional IRA. However, if the Secretary of State has not listed the Provisional IRA as a


terrorist organisation as specified under the legislation, that person will be entitled to release, even though that person is committing an offence by being a member of a terrorist organisation.

Marjorie Mowlam: The important distinction to bear in mind is that the Bill is concerned with organisations that are unequivocally committed to establishing and maintaining a ceasefire and those belonging to such organisations; proscription is concerned with the long-term purpose of an organisation. The emergency provisions Acts will still apply in respect of proscription.

Mr. McNamara: I think that my right hon. Friend may be inadvertently misleading the House. Section 1 of the agreement on prisoners reads:
Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners). Any such arrangements will protect the rights of individual prisoners".
The agreement was made after the transfer of the prisoners.

Marjorie Mowlam: If I am in any way misleading the House, I shall clarify the matter in writing to the hon. Members who have asked questions. My understanding, having discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is that the law was changed in relation to the transfers that were made. For the reasons highlighted by the Opposition, the Home Secretary was concerned that those prisoners should not be let out. He has a commitment from the Republic's Minister of Justice that they will serve their full tariff.

Mr. MacKay: rose—

Marjorie Mowlam: This will be the last intervention.

Mr. MacKay: I apologise to the Secretary of State. It is essential that, before the House reaches a conclusion on the Bill, everyone should know the facts. As someone who will vote for the Bill on Second Reading, I want other hon. Members to be absolutely clear.
The Bill states that there will be accelerated release of prisoners who fulfil the criteria that the Secretary of State mentioned. Any prisoner who is transferred to the Republic of Ireland, such as the one whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned, will fulfil those criteria.
The Irish have agreed that the sentence will be the same in Ireland as it is in England. The Bill will change the sentence in England so that the prisoner can be out within two years; therefore it will be possible to release him in Ireland in two years. We should be clear about that.

Marjorie Mowlam: If the situation is different from that which I have described, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I shall correct myself.
I say categorically to the House that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. It is the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, and it applies in that jurisdiction only. The Republic

has its jurisdiction, and we have a commitment from the Minister of Justice that that is a different jurisdiction and its rules will apply. That is my categorical answer.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Marjorie Mowlam: No, I will take no more interventions. However, I shall make sure that when the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), winds up, he will support the view that I have taken, because I believe that it is right. If I am wrong, I shall fully acknowledge that to the House. I do not think that I am wrong.

Mr. Roger Stott: rose—

Marjorie Mowlam:: No, I am sorry. I am trying to be fair. I cannot take any more interventions, or it would be unfair to those whom I have already refused.
The Bill applies to Northern Ireland, not to the Republic, or to Scotland or Wales.
All prisoners released under the Bill will be released on licence. For fixed-sentence prisoners, the licence will continue until their sentence expires. Life sentences do not expire, so prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment who are released under the Bill will remain on licence for the rest of their lives.
Prisoners on licence need to continue to meet the criteria for release set out under the legislation. That means that they must not become a supporter of a terrorist organisation, and that they must not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
If I consider that those licence conditions are breached in any case, I am empowered to suspend the licence and recall the prisoner to prison. If a licence is suspended, it will then be for the commissioners to decide whether the licence should be revoked.

Mr. Hunter: rose—

Marjorie Mowlam: No, I am sorry.
Under the agreement, both Governments gave commitments that
should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point.
The Bill provides that prisoners in respect of whom the commissioners have made a declaration, who remain in custody two years from the commencement of the legislation, shall be released at that time.
I am empowered under the Bill to bring that date forward or to put it back, depending, as stated in the paper that I placed in the Library on 20 April,
on the circumstances and progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society".
In considering whether that progress has been made, I shall take account of matters such as those identified by the Prime Minister and included in the text of the legislation.
As I said, and as is stated in the agreement, the arrangements will apply to prisoners convicted of similar offences committed in Great Britain and transferred to Northern Ireland. Such prisoners are not convicted of


scheduled offences, which is a concept unique to Northern Ireland. The Bill gives me an order-making power in respect of transferred prisoners to bring them within the terms of the legislation. In such cases, the Attorney-General or Lord Advocate, as appropriate, will say whether the offence committed would, if committed in Northern Ireland, have been a scheduled offence under the emergency provisions Act.
The British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties have worked for years to bring about agreement on the future for Northern Ireland. We have before us powers to implement one aspect of that agreement. The Bill is the first stage in building what I hope will be a better future for Northern Ireland based on fairness, consent, peace and reconciliation. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: While we are grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining the main provisions of the Bill before the House and the reasons why it is necessary, I must press her again on a particular matter. I genuinely believe that she has misled the House totally inadvertently and I ask the Minister of State to set the record straight in his winding-up speech. We have absolutely no doubt that anyone who has been convicted of a terrorist offence on the mainland, who has been imprisoned on the mainland and who is then transferred legitimately to Dublin will be eligible under the Act. The authorities in Dublin will have to respond to that.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: No.
I thank the Secretary of State sincerely for the way in which she and her officials have co-operated with the Opposition in drafting the legislation. That has been truly appreciated and I think that it has made a difference to the legislation.

Mr. McNamara: How can an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament possibly apply to the Republic of Ireland? The agreement applies to the Republic of Ireland, not the legislation.

sr. MacKay: I shall explain it simply to the hon. Gentleman. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the Minister of Justice in the Republic of Ireland gave assurances to the British Home Secretary that sentences in the Irish Republic would be the same as on the mainland. If the legislation changes sentences on the mainland, the Irish Government will be obliged to observe those changes—whether they like it or not.

Marjorie Mowlam: That reassurance was given before the Bill was drafted when the transfers were made months ago. I have tried to be reasonable and open with the House because this is difficult, detailed and complicated legislation. It applies only to Northern Ireland and the

transfers made do not relate to the Bill. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reassure the House because I do not wish that misunderstanding to continue.

Mr. MacKay: We disagree fundamentally and we look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation. It is best to leave the matter at present, as I think that the Minister will have to clarify the situation with his officials.

Mr. Stott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: No, I must proceed as many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
The Bill incorporates some, but by no means all, of the safeguards sought by my party. For that reason, we shall not seek to divide the House this evening. However, there remain some areas of deep concern where we believe that the proposed legislation is either too weak or ill defined. I shall refer to those areas—and one in particular—during my speech.
Unlike the Bill giving effect to the referendum, we do not intend to allow this legislation to be fast-tracked through Parliament. It is far too important for that, as I am sure the Secretary of State acknowledges. We intend to examine the Bill thoroughly and subject it to the fullest possible scrutiny as it passes through Committee on the Floor of the House. We shall not shirk from tabling amendments where they are necessary to strengthen the Bill's provisions.
We owe the people of Northern Ireland, especially the victims of terrorist violence, many of whom are understandably hostile to the Bill, to get it right. For many people, myself included, the prospect of prisoners—many of whom have committed unspeakable acts of cold-blooded murder—being released is sickening. They feel that the Bill undermines the rule of law and is a concession to terror. That is not confined to Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, too, we have suffered appalling acts of terrorism. The House will remember former colleagues who have been murdered by republican terrorists.
I do not necessarily agree, especially in the context of an overall political settlement, with those who oppose the Bill. However, I certainly understand and sympathise with their arguments, as I did with the chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Federation a fortnight ago. Many of his members have been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism for nearly 30 years. We must always ensure that the sensitivities of the victims are at the forefront of our minds. I was grateful to the Secretary of State for making that clear.
The Bill is necessary to give effect to the key element of the Belfast agreement, which was reached in the multi-party talks on 10 April. I have no hesitation in repeating the opinion of the Conservative party that the agreement and the results of the referendum on 23 May were truly momentous events. We all hope that they will be seen to have marked a turning point in the history of Northern Ireland when the principles of democracy and consent finally triumphed over violence and terror.

Mr. David Winnick: I fully endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about the agreement. Will he take it on board that the horror that is felt as a result of the crimes and atrocities committed, not only by


the IRA but certainly by the IRA and the loyalist murder gangs, is felt throughout the House and is not the monopoly of the present Opposition? We all feel the same about the terrible crimes that have been committed. That is so of our feelings towards the victims and their close relatives. That should always be borne in mind.

Mr. MacKay: I readily acknowledge that and in no sense implied otherwise, as the hon. Gentleman will confirm.
It is surely incumbent on us all, even the members of those parties who campaigned for a no vote in the referendum, to try to build upon what has been achieved and try to make the agreement and the new institutions work.
The people of Northern Ireland have spoken overwhelmingly. More than 71 per cent. of them voted in favour of the agreement.

Mr. Desmond Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: No. I think that it is important that we make progress.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland are anxious to show their democratic credentials and yearn for a lasting settlement and an end to the troubles. By any reasonable statistical judgment there was a clear yes vote in both communities for the agreement. We must never let critics of the agreement say anything else for that would be a plain untruth.
So a democratic verdict was clear. The prospects of failure now are far too horrific to contemplate. We in the Conservative party share the judgment of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the agreement strengthens the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is clearly a partitionist settlement. The Act of Union, the bedrock of Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, remains firmly in place. As a result of the referendum in the Irish Republic, the territorial claim over Northern Ireland has at long last gone, and not a moment too soon.

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: No. I have just said that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
All the parties that signed up to the agreement signed up also to the principle that there can be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of its people. I believe that these arguments were well understood by the majority of the Unionist community in the referendum campaign. However, many Unionists found harder to accept the provisions of the agreement dealing with prisoner release and decommissioning. That is why the Opposition pressed for substantial decommissioning to take place before the early release of prisoners, and for this to be incorporated in the proposed legislation that is before us.
Those of us who were in the Province campaigning for a yes vote in the final few days of the referendum campaign were left in no doubt that a significant number

of moderate people in both communities finally decided to vote yes only when the Prime Minister had given them a clear and unequivocal assurance that decommissioning and the renunciation of violence would be incorporated in the legislation on early prisoner release and the setting up of the assembly.
In the Opposition's view, the Bill goes only some of the way to satisfying those assurances and will, therefore, require amendment in Committee next week. The most serious omission is that it does not establish a clear legislative linkage between some actual decommissioning having taken place and the accelerated release of prisoners.
To put it simply, the Bill merely states that
the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation…is co-operating fully with
the commission, whereas what the people of Northern Ireland and elsewhere expect is that the Secretary of State should release prisoners early only if such organisations are fully co-operating with the commission.
Incidentally, as the Prime Minister stated in his Balmoral speech on 14 May, such co-operation is implementing provisions within the agreement. Therefore, let us have no talk that amending the Bill will be in breach of the agreement; it strengthens the agreement.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me put to the Secretary of State the words of the Prime Minister's pledge:
Violence has to be given up and decommissioning is part of that.
As I understand the Bill, those who are eligible for release must declare that violence has been given up. Whether it has been given up or not, or whether they have left the organisation, they must convince the Secretary of State that that is so. But the Bill is in no way linked with decommissioning. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the decommissioning commission has no power to make people decommission; it has power only when people are mutually prepared to decommission their weapons.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman makes precisely the point that I am making. The amendment that we shall table next week insists that there is linkage between decommissioning and the earlier release of prisoners.
On precisely that point, I quote an exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday 6 May when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister:
Opposition Members will argue strongly that the IRA cannot have prisoners released if it does not give up its guns and explosives.
The Prime Minister replied:
Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: No, I am at an important part of my speech. This is the key to ensuring that we get the Bill right.
Those remarks of the Prime Minister neatly summarise why many people in Northern Ireland were finally persuaded to support the agreement in the referendum vote. They must now not be let down by anything less being incorporated in the legislation.
We trust that the Government will be prepared to look again at the wording when we examine the Bill more closely in Committee. I have some confidence that they will because I know from my conversations with the Secretary of State that she is sympathetic to the points that I am making. But there is absolutely no possibility that the people of Northern Ireland who voted in the referendum can now be let down.
That quotation from the Prime Minister that I have just given the House is absolutely clear. It is not open to any possible misinterpretation. It is on the basis of that quotation and other remarks during the referendum campaign, and legitimate spin doctoring in the newspapers of the Province, that a large number of people voted yes. The Opposition intend to make sure that the Government stick to that assurance given by the Prime Minister from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Hunter: Can my hon. Friend not strengthen his argument by pointing to the Prime Minister's letter, which appeared in the Irish News and the News Letter on referendum day when he repeated that pledge in the context of Sinn Fein-IRA participation in the Executive?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. I am giving only one example; fortunately, there are numerous. I am delighted that there are, because the Prime Minister helped to achieve a yes vote with those assurances. We pressed him to give the assurances and we are entirely on his side. We now simply want to ensure that the assurances are implemented. I hope that there is nothing between us and that the Government will accept the amendments which my right hon. Friends and I shall move on Monday.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for members of Sinn Fein to be placed in executive posts in government before the organisation with which they are acknowledged to be inextricably, and therefore inseparably, linked has decommissioned would be a travesty of all principles of democracy?

Mr. MacKay: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Once we have before us the legislation setting up the assembly, I shall wish to move similar amendments if need be. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I sincerely trust that we will not need to do so because, if we are successful in having our amendments accepted next week, I hope that those who draft the subsequent Bill will incorporate them straight away. There is no difference between the two Bills, and the Prime Minister's assurances, both on the assembly and Ministers taking their place in the Executive and on the early release of prisoners, were identical. I therefore agree whole-heartedly with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The hon. Gentleman is trying to take the high moral ground. Can he confirm that the previous Administration put in place legislation, which resulted in the release of a large number of

terrorist-related prisoners, and not one ounce of Semtex was handed in, not one bullet was handed in, and not one gun was decommissioned? Can he explain what was happening in his Government at that time if the linkage that he is now trying to establish is such an important and key issue?

Mr. MacKay: I hope that I am not trying to establish a linkage, because the linkage clearly and irrefutably exists, as shown by the Prime Minister's remarks. I believe what the Prime Minister tells us at the Dispatch Box; it is a pity that the Minister does not. I have confidence that the Prime Minister will not let down the people of this country. The simple truth is that there would not have been a substantial yes vote—the sort that the Minister and I wanted, which showed the majority of the Unionist community voting yes as well—had the Prime Minister not given those assurances. Those assurances must now be turned into legislation, and I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will confirm that that will happen.
I would be failing in my duty as Opposition spokesman if I did not also mention the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. People will find it hard to understand how the House is considering legislation that allows the early release of terrorist murderers while those two soldiers continue to languish in prison. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was speaking for the British people when he demanded a review of their case last Wednesday. Although we were naturally pleased with the Prime Minister's response that the Secretary of State was carrying out a review, the answer was news to everybody—probably including the Secretary of State.
The House would be interested to know from the Secretary of State when the review started, given that the latest court judgment took place as far back as 22 May.

Marjorie Mowlam: The decision took place on 22 and 23 May. I received the papers on 2 June and have been considering them since. I was aware of the Prime Minister's views.

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. It is most unusual for this spin-doctoring Government not to pass on good news to our friends in the media. It came out only at Prime Minister's Question Time. Naturally, I accept the Secretary of State's response, as I always do.
This Bill is easily the most difficult and controversial of the legislation arising from the Belfast agreement. We cannot afford to get it wrong simply for the sake of speedy passage through the House. There can be no halfway house or fudge between democracy and terrorism, nor can we tolerate a situation whereby republicans or loyalists wield Executive power in one hand and an Armalite in the other. The changes that we want strengthen the commitment to democratic and peaceful methods and establish a clear link between early release and decommissioning. We look to the Government to take them on board.

Mr. David Trimble: As hon. Members have said, the Bill gives effect to part of the Stormont agreement. We must take the Stormont agreement as a


whole, and should not pick and choose. Although this issue has caused great concern, nevertheless it is part of that agreement.
On that Good Friday afternoon, this aspect of the agreement caused us considerable difficulties. It was clear during the referendum campaign that the concept of early release caused considerable difficulties to the community in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. It is clearly an interference with the normal judicial process for political reasons, so it is, in principle, undesirable. It also appears to many people, with justification, as a concession granted to terrorists, so it is distasteful. It also strikes many people that to approve, tolerate or acquiesce in these arrangements in some way dishonours the memory of those who have suffered as a result of terrorism. There is considerable difficulty with this measure.
People would not find this concept acceptable unless they knew that, as a result of the agreement as a whole, there was to be a genuine ending of violence and a genuine peace. What might be tolerable in the context of a genuine and permanent end to violence would not be tolerable otherwise. That must be understood.
In the discussions that led up to the agreement, when we entered reservations about the concept of early release, people said to us that such measures had been taken after previous emergencies. Indeed, there were releases after the emergencies in Northern Ireland in the 1920s, 1940s and 1960s, when the terrorist campaign had ended. Most of those releases were of persons who had been interned, so the problem of people who had been convicted did not arise. However, a limited number of persons who had been convicted of terrorist offences were released after previous emergencies had ended. In those cases, the releases occurred when it was clear that terrorism had ended and been defeated. That marks a distinction from the present situation. We are asked to approve provisions for release when it is not clear that terrorism has ended or been defeated.
We hope that terrorism will end and that there will be a genuine peace, but, because it is not at this moment absolutely clear that that is the position, it is essential to ensure that the tests and conditions written into the Bill are firm and watertight and are adhered to in practice. Like the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), we shall focus on the tests in the legislation. It is essential that those tests are in a satisfactory form and that we can have some confidence that the Government will stick to them in practice.
The Government will have great difficulty with the people of Northern Ireland on this matter. The Secretary of State will have to establish credibility with the community. That credibility does not at present exist, and she will have to tackle that problem in what she says and in what she does in the coming weeks and months. She will have to create that confidence, so she has an awesome task in front of her.
Will there be a genuine peace? That is the crucial question. The decommissioning of terrorist weapons has been and continues to be an important litmus test of sincerity. It must be dealt with if there is to be genuine peace. No one in his right mind would want those

weapons to be left lying around to fall into who knows whose hands and be available for use by who knows who in the future.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned credibility. Decommissioning is one of the essential features required to give credibility to these pledges. Does he agree that this Government and their predecessors have resiled from all the positions that they have taken on decommissioning, and that that is the basis for the lack of credibility to which he refers?

Mr. Trimble: As I said earlier, there is a lack of confidence in the community on some of these matters. The Government must act in such a way as to give confidence, particularly as the agreement contains a clear provision on the decommissioning of weapons. There is a clear and unequivocal obligation, which has been accepted by all the parties, that decommissioning shall be completed within a two-year period. That is significant progress on the unsatisfactory positions of the past.
It is no coincidence that the two-year period for actual decommissioning to be completed parallels the two-year period under which the early release scheme is to operate. There is a clear link between those two measures in the agreement, and there has to be a similar link in the legislation between the two-year period for early release of prisoners and the two-year period for decommissioning. It is essential that the Government insist on that.
This is not the time to allow any flexibility or fudge, whatever siren voices may be heard from some quarters. If the Government do not insist on that point at this stage, the necessary requirement of decommissioning will never be achieved, and society in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland will be left in a similar situation to that in South Africa, where far too many weapons were left sloshing around, available for any petty crook or organisation to use time and again.
When Mr. de Klerk addressed people in Dublin and in Belfast on this issue, I was struck by what he said. When asked whether he had any regrets about the peace process in South Africa, he identified decommissioning as an issue to which they did not give sufficient attention. Society in that country has suffered a high price as a result. We must ensure that this time decommissioning is carried out.
Reference has been made to the speech that the Prime Minister gave in Balmoral in Belfast during the referendum campaign. I believe that his speech had a crucial effect on public opinion. He spelled out certain criteria. I am glad that clause 3(9) includes those criteria, because they are essential. However, it is a little disappointing that the speech was more emphatic than the legislation. We must examine these criteria.
The first criterion that the Prime Minister mentioned was
an end to violence for good".
He referred to a commitment that
the so-called war is finished, done with, gone".
He used clear, emphatic language, but the legislation refers to whether an organisation is
committed to the use now and in the future
of peaceful means. It has lost a little in the translation.
More has been lost in the translation of the next requirement. The Bill refers to whether an organisation
has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence".
In the Balmoral speech, the Prime Minister was much more precise. He talked about
an end to bombings, killings and beatings…an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
It might be argued that the term "acts of violence" includes beatings, and I hope that the Secretary of State will interpret and apply it in that way. The Prime Minister's speech, however, refers to the
progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures".
That must take place. If there is to be a genuine commitment to peaceful means and a permanent renunciation of violence, there can be no reason for the retention of private armies.

Mr. Hunter: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one dimension is missing in the Bill? It makes no reference to racketeering, profiteering and other quasi-economic fundraising activities of terrorism. Should not those activities also be proscribed in relation to early release?

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. Such organised crime has indeed been a feature of parallel terrorism, and there is reason to believe that quite a few of those who have been involved in terrorism in the past will now move into racketeering. I believe it has been said that the Mafia began, many centuries ago, as a so-called liberation movement. That is very much in our minds at present.

Mr. Tony McWalter: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken movingly about the circumstances governing the Bill. I commend him on all the work that he has done in seeking to establish peace in the Province, but is he not now setting the conditions a little too high?
We know that there is not a complete end to terrorism. Every society has some murderous elements, and some organisations, such as the Irish National Liberation Army and the Loyalist Volunteer Force, may still be interested in continuing a terrorist war. An end to all terrorism is a condition that we know has not yet been met. What we want to do is remove a large number of the components of terrorism, and I think that the Bill goes a long way toward doing that.

Mr. Trimble: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Life is not as cut and dried as we would like it to be, in many respects. I return, however, to my earlier point. There must be a clear insistence on a commitment to peaceful means, properly meant and carried out in practice, along with a clear change in the nature of the organisations with which we are dealing. Of course there will be splinter groups, but we are not focusing on splinter groups here; we are focusing on mainstream organisations that must change. If we do not insist on that now, the opportunity to bring about change will be lost. Weakness

at this stage will result in more problems in the future. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman intends.
Let me return to my comparison between the Balmoral criteria and those in the Bill. The third Balmoral criterion appears as the fourth in the Bill, and refers to
co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in…the…Decommissioning Act".
The Balmoral speech refers to
full co-operation with the Independent Commission on decommissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement.
The phrase
to implement the provisions of the Agreement
is missing from the Bill—the "provisions" being for actual decommissioning within a specific period.
We need to know how the Secretary of State interprets the phrase "co-operating fully". Regrettably, we did not hear that in her opening speech, so we look to the Minister of State to make clear what is meant by the phrase when he winds up the debate. We also look to him to make clear what is meant by "take into account". We need to know that the criteria spelled out by the Prime Minister, and referred to in the Bill, will be applied in practice and that there will be no slippage. It is essential for the Government to carry with them conviction and credibility.
We must also focus on the provision for accelerated release at a point in the future, which the Bill currently specifies as two years hence. We need to know that that is linked to the implementation of the agreement, particularly with regard to decommissioning. We should look closely at clause 10(7), which gives the Secretary of State power to vary the accelerated release date. I think that it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to vary it with regard to particular organisations, rather than generally.
I raised that point when I was consulted on the Bill by officials. I thank the Secretary of State for that consultation, and for the opportunity to discuss these matters. It was pointed out to me that the objective could be achieved in a roundabout way, in that the criteria in clause 3(8) and (9) could be used to remove organisations from the list. Power would then exist, under clause 8, to revoke declarations that had been made. If we are to proceed in that roundabout way, however, clause 8 needs to be strengthened. In particular, an obligation should be imposed to seek revocation if the conditions in clause 3(8) have not been satisfied. Moreover, the commissioners should have a duty to revoke declarations if the conditions in clause 3 are no longer met. We shall want to pursue that point.
There are other problems. I am concerned about what has been said about transferred prisoners. It is a complex matter; I am inclined to agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Bracknell, and I am keen to hear what the Minister of State says. If the provisions for early release apply to people who are transferred from England to Northern Ireland, it is difficult to argue that, when sentences imposed in England are varied by virtue of the legislation, the Irish Government must continue to be bound by undertakings given before the agreement and before the legislation. We need to hear more about that. We need to know what undertakings the Irish Government have given since the agreement, and what discussions have taken place with the Irish Government since then.
If the position is as the Secretary of State has said, that will give us concern, just as the statements made by the Irish Government about those who murdered Garda McCabe have given us concern. If the official view of the Irish and British Governments is that the murder of policemen outside Northern Ireland is quite different from the murder of policemen inside Northern Ireland, and that the lives of Northern Ireland policemen are not valued in the same way as the lives of policemen in North Yorkshire or Limerick, that is deeply offensive to society in Northern Ireland as a whole, particularly to the families of policemen who have been murdered in Northern Ireland. It is a very sensitive issue.
We shall need to focus on the period in respect of which the legislation operates, and how it applies to persons who have not been convicted before 10 April or who are charged subsequently. I see that there is an express provision with regard to accelerated release, but I see no equivalent provision with regard to declarations for early release in the earlier clauses. I should have thought that it would be best to apply the legislation simply to those who have been charged before 10 April—that would be a clean cut-off—but we shall want to examine the issue closely in Committee.
Finally, I should like to return to decommissioning and to draw attention to an interesting expression of opinion on the issue that reinforces the need for insistence on this matter. It also shows the way in which opinion elsewhere has changed. The opinion is contained in a recent editorial in The Washington Post which, I think, was written to time with the arrival in Washington of the person who was returned to serve as the Member for Belfast, West. The editorial stated:
It was always evident that decommissioning…would be the toughest issues of peace to enforce. Optimists…have suggested relying on a strategy of 'trust and rust'…counting on the gunmen simply to throw their weapons into a bog. But this is not what the agreement said. It promised not only the security flowing from disarmament but the confidence flowing from the spectacle of orderly, verified disarmament.
The editorial concluded:
Any hints of a departure from its specific terms, especially on the 'indispensable' issue of disarming, can bring no good.
I have expressed that opinion in more robust terms. It is significant that opinion elsewhere, and particularly what seems to be a change of opinion elsewhere on this matter, shows the Government the international support that there will be if they robustly insist on all terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland demonstrating clearly and unequivocally that the war is over and stating that they must be irrevocably committed to peaceful means before they can benefit from early releases or from other aspects of the agreement.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The legislation is unique. One could search the record books to find legislation to do what this Bill does and have little success. It is unique because it deals with a unique agreement that was reached to deal with unique circumstances that have culminated in 28 years of almost unremitting violence. There can be no perfect legislation in relation to that because it is not a legislative matter: it

is a political matter. At the heart of the argument is the fact that the legislation, with its legalities and legislative quirks, is political. We should not lose sight of the fact that it is designed for a political agreement that will help to bring about circumstances that nothing else has been able to achieve over almost 30 years. We should consistently measure that political element against our views of bits and pieces of the legislation.
What is the political element? The accelerated release of prisoners is a cold, harsh fact for all of us in the north of Ireland, but it is an inevitable and inescapable necessity for a lasting agreement. It rankles with me, with Opposition Members and with people throughout the north of Ireland, but we cannot escape the fact that that is the Bill's political content. It is inevitable and inescapable if we are to make the Good Friday agreement work and build permanent peace. It could enable us to achieve the almost impossible, which is to bind the deep wounds of a community that have been caused by violence on both sides and heal the bitterness and hatred.
I ask right hon. and hon. Members to measure the legalistic niceties of parts of the Bill against the political imperative that we all face and knew that we faced when we signed the Good Friday agreement. It is ironic that from that agreement the bitter pill comes first because the first legislative element of the agreement has to do with the release of prisoners. The community's first experience of the agreement will be the legislation for that necessary process. I know that that is in the minds of people throughout the north of Ireland. I ask people to understand that we are dealing not just with sensitivity in the Unionist community. There is sensitivity throughout the community, not just in relation to prisoners but in relation to victims.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that successive Governments have said that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in any part of the United Kingdom, but that only those who have been convicted after due process and beyond any reasonable doubt of crimes that are viewed as such in any civilised society are in gaol. I am sure he will agree that the real issue is the early release not of prisoners but of duly convicted criminals, many of them of the worst conceivable kind.

Mr. Mallon: I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I wish that I had the luxury of the pedantry of judging everything in the terms that he uses. I do not have the luxury of measuring these matters in legalistic terms: I leave that to those who have. I do not engage in the luxury of trying to create arguments that can be won and lost on both sides. The political dimension could evaporate and we could lose all in the process. The hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that, to win an argument, one must convince people of the rightness of what one is doing. I do not question the legal expertise that the hon. and learned Gentleman brought to his intervention and that he will bring to this and other debates. However, I question his political awareness.
Political reality has conditioned the community in the north of Ireland to acceptance of the fact that early release is part of the solution to the problem. It is a unique act of good faith by people in the north of Ireland, in Britain and in the Republic of Ireland. However introverted we may be in the north of Ireland, we should remember that


it is mostly three groups of people who suffer from the violence. They are the people of this country, those of the Republic of Ireland and those in the north of Ireland. Through their Governments and their representatives, those people will make that act of faith when they pass the legislation. It is, indeed, an act of generosity and of vision. That vision will carry us through the most difficult parts of the post-agreement period—and difficult they will be. It is an experience. Indeed, I would go further and call it an act of compassion. For many, perhaps, it is even an act of forgiveness, which, at some time or other, must be faced in life in the north of Ireland.
By a quirk of history, our generation must undergo this experience so that our children and other generations will not have to do so. It is part of our custodianship of the agreement that we signed that we see it through in respect of its integrity and in the terms in which it was written.
The Bill will be very difficult for many in the House. I do not confine that remark to representatives of the Unionist community. I gently remind the House that, following the referendum, when we talk about the people of the north of Ireland, we are surely talking about all the people of the north of Ireland. The community that my party and I represent comprises 42 per cent. and more of the people of the north of Ireland. Let us not get into a habit of dismissing a sizeable section of the community. That will not happen; those days are over. Indeed, with all due respect, we will not let it happen. That is what partnership is about.
When talking about yes votes and no votes, to which reference has been made, let us not forget the section of the community that, by and large, voted yes. Let us not forget as well the people of the Republic of Ireland, who took an enormous step in amending their constitution to ensure that it would not be perceived as presenting a threat either to the people of the north of Ireland or to peace.
In dealing with such legislation, we are treading on eggs; there is no question or doubt about that. It will be easy for people to win a little battle on a small legalistic point, but it will be much more difficult to achieve the totality of requirement through the Bill and other factors, and to gauge and view things in terms of that totality, which will have to be done.
I repeat, I understand the feelings of people here. I repeat, I sat in talks for two years in rooms with people who had murdered a close colleague of mine and had served their sentence for it. I live in the north of Ireland; I always have. Since 1985—I cannot be precise about the figure—between 400 and 500 terrorists' sentences have been reviewed. Those people are walking on the streets of the north of Ireland as a result of a review procedure that is similar to the one in the Bill. I hope that that process will add to the potential success of the agreement.
More than anything else, the Bill places a debt of honour on the shoulders of all organisations that are connected to paramilitary activity. It takes the initiative, it puts them in a position where they owe it to the communities in the north and south of Ireland, the people living here, the two Governments who signed the agreement and all political parties, to ensure that there are no tricks, no games, no strokes. We are playing for the future, and that debt of honour will have to be honoured.
In just the same way, we must honour our own word. This legislation represents the first part of the agreement to go through the House. We must remember that the

agreement was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland—north and south. This debate has particular significance. It is essential that we send the strongest signal to everyone of our determination to implement the agreement completely and in strict conformity with its terms. In passing this Bill, we will place a debt of honour on parties connected with paramilitary organisations. This Government, the Irish Government, my party and the other political parties signed the agreement, and we must honour our word not just to the House or our parties but to the people who gave their mandate in the referendum. None of us can break our word to the people of the north of Ireland who gave theirs so readily in the referendum. We cannot take the little bits that we do not like and try to change them to what we would prefer. If the terms of the agreement are altered in any significant way, the faith of all those who voted for the agreement will be breached.
Creating peace is one of the great challenges. There has been a remarkable prisoner culture in Ireland down through the centuries. One of the elements of hope, which I think the Secretary of State has recognised on several occasions, is the development of thinking in the—now—political parties which stemmed from inside the prisons. We should recognise that. I speak as someone who has no prisoners, no guns and no Semtex and who does not threaten people or violence. I gently remind everyone that that does not mean either that the integrity of arguments does not stand up or that those arguments can be ignored.
I appreciate everything that the Prime Minister has done in trying to ensure the endorsement of the agreement in the referendum. I again ask that we always remember that there are two sections of the community. Both want peace; both want—and have said so—the agreement to work. Let us do what we did in reaching the agreement. As people of honour, we signed it; as people of honour, we should deliver it.
I ask that the agreement be adhered to. My party will insist that it will be. There can be no question of introducing new elements or of imposing preconditions which were considered and rejected during negotiation between the parties and the Governments. It is also important that implementation of the legislation takes fully into account the context in which the agreement was negotiated and the timetable on which its various aspects must be implemented. That especially applies to clause 3(9)(d), to which reference has been made. Subsections (9) and (8) must not be used as a means to rewrite any party's understanding of what constitutes a "complete and unequivocal" ceasefire.
It is worth remembering that, on 5 March, both the British and Irish Governments recognised that
a complete, unqualified and unequivocal IRA ceasefire was being fully and continuously observed.
The definition of ceasefire applying in that statement cannot now be changed to suit the changing mood in any section of the community. If the definition applies, we should proceed on that basis. If it does not, let the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State come to the House and tell us how it has changed. If we proceed on that basis, we can proceed honourably in implementing that which was honourably signed on Good Friday.
One of the strengths of the north of Ireland has been the generosity, humanity and spirit of those who have been victims. I have often questioned my own capacity, if any of my family had been killed or seriously injured, to show the generosity and magnanimity demonstrated by those who have been victims.
When we pass the Bill, we should therefore not engage in an emotional binge on the suffering of victims and their bereaved. We should remember their compassion and generosity in supporting the agreement. They are making a major sacrifice in overcoming their prejudices. We should approach passing the Bill in the same manner. If we do, we will be able to make a unique piece of legislation into something that is crucial for the future.
If we niggle at the Bill—going for little victories over a word or two, and the little legalisms—when we know that we are taking a political decision, we will only be adding fuel to the fire of controversy and bitterness, of which we already have plenty.
Surely our job as legislators, and as people who are trying to lead in the north of Ireland, is to say again to people, "Good Friday was a good Friday. The referendum result was your decision. Now we assume our responsibilities and implement your wishes in full and in their complete integrity."

Mr. Phil Willis: On behalf of Liberal Democrat Members, I thank the Secretary of State and her officials for welcoming us, helping us to understand the Bill, and consulting us fully on it. We are very grateful to her for that.
It is now exactly two months since Good Friday and the historic agreement in Belfast. In those two months, we have witnessed a hard-fought referendum campaign, and, in referendums in Northern Ireland and the Republic, overwhelming support for the settlement. We are now well on the way to the first elections to the new assembly.
Liberal Democrat Members whole-heartedly support the agreement, and we will be whole-heartedly supporting the legislation. It is as simple as that. Some hon. Members may suggest that the Bill has been born of compromised principles. Liberal Democrats say that the overall agreement is a principled compromise, and that the legislation flows straight out of the agreement. We cannot have the agreement without the legislation. If one picks and chooses which parts of the agreement are implemented and which are ignored, the agreement would not have been worth making with that person in the first place.
We should do well to consider the legislation in context—the context not only of the agreement signed in Belfast, but of earlier legislation. The Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, which was initiated by the previous Government, set a precedent on the issue. We must recognise and accept that precedent.
The 1995 Act was passed by Parliament only a few months after the first republican and loyalist ceasefire, and increased from one third to one half the amount of remission that prisoners convicted of scheduled offences could expect. The Act has led to about 240 prisoners being released on licence earlier than they otherwise would have been. Subsequently, only two of those prisoners' licences have been revoked. The House united behind the pioneering 1995 legislation, and I hope that it will today unite behind the Act's successor.
The Bill, if closely considered, suggests that it will affect a similar number of prisoners as the 1995 Act. The effect of the legislation will be that about four out of every

five prisoners currently serving a sentence for scheduled offences will be released within two years. However, even without the legislation, about 45 per cent. of those prisoners would have been released within two years. Putting together those two facts, and applying some elementary arithmetic, the fact emerges that most of the prisoners who will be released on licence because of the Bill would, without it, have been set free entirely.
The legislation is not—as some people would have us believe—a swinging open of the prison doors, allowing a flood of prisoners to run amok, but a jarring open of those doors, little by little, so that inmates might smell the fresh breath of a society at peace, which we hope will stay at peace. The Bill will allow them to come out of prison on a very tight and secure leash.
Such legislation must, of course, have some very carefully constructed safeguards. Perhaps some of the most important safeguards are stated in clause 9, which deals with the terms of the licence under which prisoners will be released. If the terms are broken, prisoners can again be locked up, and their sentences can be reimposed. We have to recognise that provision. If we put ourselves in the position of the prisoners, we might realise how strongly that provision will act to deter reoffending.
Liberal Democrat Members welcome the independent element in the process that will be provided by the sentence review board, and we welcome specifically the independent commissioners. I hope that their independence will give the process added credibility, and ensure that not only the spirit of the Good Friday agreement but its detail—which is embodied in the legislation's detail—are put into practice.
We welcome the fact that all prisoners will have to have served a certain amount of their sentence, depending on the length of their sentence. Anyone who thought that the Bill was a "get out of gaol free" card will be disappointed.
We welcome also the flexibility inherent in the legislation. The anticipated two-year time frame is amendable. Clause 14 allows the Secretary of State to suspend and revive the entire process, depending on how well the agreement is working.
Despite the legislation's virtues, it has some flaws of omission—the most important of which centres on the issue of victim notification. In the light of the comprehensive Bloomfield report on the victims of the violence of the past 30 years, it is important that victims are not overlooked in the legislation. Victims are as essential as prisoners to the process working.
I ask the House to imagine how upset victims would be if confronted unexpectedly by the person who harmed them or killed their relative. A victim may have spent years trying to put behind them their horrible and painful memories, only to have those memories ripped open by a chance encounter. If anyone thinks that such chance encounters are unlikely, think of those who might go out of their way to make them happen—such as tabloid journalists; the agreement's opponents; or anyone who might wish simply to rekindle the troubles.
There are victims not only in Northern Ireland. Victims on the mainland will have to be protected, and their feelings considered.

Mr. Hunter: I take exception to a comment made by the hon. Gentleman. To oppose the agreement is not to


want a return to violence; many people genuinely and sincerely believe that the agreement is flawed. May I invite him to reconsider those words?

Mr. Willis: I am more than pleased not only to reconsider those words, but to make it absolutely clear—as I did last week, in a question to the Secretary of State—that, after speaking at a meeting in Londonderry, to people from both north and south of the border who had voted no in the referendum, I share that concern. It was certainly a concern of our party that we should not make the mistake of thinking that people who voted no in the referendum wanted a continuation of the warfare that has gone on in Northern Ireland. I accept the hon. Gentleman's rebuke, and am glad to put the matter straight.
The deep concern of families in Northern Ireland is mirrored in my area of North Yorkshire by that of the family of Special Constable Glen Goodman, who was shot when he and his fellow officer Sandy Kelly stopped a car carrying the IRA killer Paul Magee in June 1992. It will be difficult to persuade the parents, friends and colleagues of Special Constable Goodman that Paul Magee should be released from prison without serving 30 years, which is why the recognition of the position of victims and the need to support them through this process must be one of the most important components of the Bill.
The provision should include prisoners who have been transferred to prisons in the Republic of Ireland. When we get a definitive answer from the Secretary of State, which I am sure we will in due course, it is also important that she deals with whether the Government of the Republic of Ireland are contemplating similar legislation. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is right to say that we cannot pass legislation in a British Parliament that would be binding on the Republic, but there is nothing to stop the Republic passing similar legislation to mirror the agreement.

Mr. McNamara: May I repeat what is contained within the agreement under the heading, "Prisoners"? It states:
1. Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland"—
which would include the Republic of Ireland as well as this island—
similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners).

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. That is at the heart of the confusion. Clearly the agreement intends that arrangements will be made in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. This Bill refers to the arrangements in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Mr. Willis: I will certainly give way when I have finished this point.
The reality—this is why I mentioned Special Constable Goodman and his family—is that their relationship as victims is to a prisoner who is now held in a Republic of Ireland gaol. When the legislation—or arrangements—is

produced, it is imperative on our Government to ensure that we use our best offices with the Republic of Ireland Government to see that similar support is given, irrespective of whether the prisoner is released in the south or the north, whatever the arrangements. That is the heart of the confusion, which I have no doubt will be sorted out.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. His subsequent remarks have clarified the point that I was about to make. However, do I understand him correctly to be saying that he feels that, if qualified prisoners are released in Northern Ireland, someone who has committed a crime on the United Kingdom mainland and has been transferred to the Republic of Ireland should have the benefit of exactly similar provisions and should be released in exactly the same way? In other words, Mr. Magee would be entitled to be released within a similar two-year scheme, as the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) properly and correctly pointed out.

Mr. Willis: My understanding from the terms of the agreement is that that will be the case. That is the difficulty that the family, friends and colleagues of Special Constable Goodman have, and it is a problem that all victims will have when a prisoner is released, no matter what the sentence. Clearly, that problem must be dealt with. Our plea from the Liberal Democrat Benches is that the legislation should support the victims, and we shall table an amendment to that effect in Committee.

Mr. William Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider it an insult to the relatives of those who have been murdered to let the person who committed the crime out, and then express regret to the relative that they have been let out?

Mr. Willis: If I have in any way given that impression—indeed, if the Secretary of State or any other hon. Member has done so—it would be wholly wrong. Such an arrangement would be incomprehensible in a civilised society. Clearly, whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the principle behind the Bill and embedded in the Belfast agreement that the release of prisoners is an essential part of the peace process is up to him to decide.
I am arguing that the needs of victims have to be taken into consideration. We also argue that, before any prisoner is released—rather than after release—we should deal with the victim in the most sympathetic manner. Without a basic provision to safeguard the dignity of victims, this legislation would be a lopsided enactment of the Good Friday agreement, giving prisoners their due while snubbing their victims, and perhaps even making victims suffer twice.
The Northern Ireland Office, or, indeed, the partners in the peace process, may well be powerless to act, but scenes of triumphal behaviour by released prisoners could do more to destabilise the process than almost anything else, and we have to work to avoid it. We must continue to emphasise that the only winner in this process must be peace for all the people of Northern Ireland. This Bill is before Parliament for them, and it is for a lasting peace that the victims have made such huge sacrifices, which we must not forget.
I understand that our sister party, the Alliance party, in Northern Ireland has led the way in that area, making victim notification a central part of its post-agreement platform. Just as the views of nationalists and Unionists need to be reconciled, so too do the differences between prisoners and their victims. Victims and their families deserve recognition and respect. Unlike prisoners, victims have no political wing. We all have a responsibility to ensure that they are not ignored in the process.
The simplest remedy to the problem is a basic courtesy. Victims of terrorist acts should be notified when the perpetrator of an act from which they have suffered is released. Victims should have the right not to be informed—some may want to put the whole business behind them, and that should be their right. Other victims may be difficult to identify, but every effort should be made to trace them. As the Bloomfield report has made clear, difficulty in tracing victims should not be used to justify the legislation being enacted unamended. If it is not amended, we will consider it a lopsided enactment of the agreement, honouring commitments to prisoners but not to victims.
Therefore, will the Government amend the legislation before it reaches Committee, to ensure that victims are notified of the release of prisoners who made them victims? The Secretary of State or the Minister will undoubtedly respond to that question in winding up.
One omission that probably does not require an amendment to the legislation—a ministerial assurance will suffice—is: when is a ceasefire not a ceasefire? The political process that led to the Good Friday agreement was littered with a wonderland of semantics. Some phrases were used by different people to mean totally different things, and some phrases were even used by the same people to mean different things. When I heard some of the language, I wondered whether we were at a mad hatter's tea party, and I am glad to see that we are finally climbing out of the rabbit hole. The tightening of what constitutes a ceasefire is welcome, and absolutely necessary.
I am glad that persisting with punishment beatings now constitutes an infringement of the ceasefire, and that the notion of an acceptable level of violence has gone the way of the no campaign in last month's referendum. Will the Secretary of State assure us that she will consult the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding before deciding whether the ceasefire has been broken, or whether it remains worthy of the name and the entitlement that that name bestows? I am sure that she would hold such consultations as a matter of course, but it would good to hear an assurance in the House.
The greatest impact of the legislation will be on those organisations to be listed under the definitions in clause 3(8)—terrorist organisations that have not enacted a ceasefire. Because of the legislation, any prisoner belonging to those organisations will plead for a ceasefire to be declared. Because of the agreement, and the fact that most paramilitary groups seem to be abiding by it, those organisations will feel the strength of the security forces concentrated against them; and because of the referendum, in which 71 per cent. voted for the agreement, there will be nothing to gain and everything to lose by pursuing an armed struggle.
The legislation will be a vital element in bringing lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and the Liberal Democrats will support it tonight.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I welcome the speed with which the Government have introduced this difficult, sensitive and emotional piece of legislation. It is difficult for all parties in the House and for all the people of these islands, because we rightly speak of the pain suffered by the people in Northern Ireland—although the worst atrocity was perpetrated in the Republic of Ireland—but many people here in Britain have also suffered the pain and anger that flow from terrorist violence. People have been victims of loyalist as well as republican violence, and have also suffered at the hands of the security forces, even if the pain was sometimes inflicted inadvertently.
The Bill is important and necessary, and we must be very careful indeed with it. We must reject all calls for amendments that introduce new preconditions to the agreement and seek to rewrite it.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman consider any of the undertakings given by the Prime Minister in the referendum campaign to amount to what he describes as new preconditions?

Mr. McNamara: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the statements from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are built into the Bill, and do not necessarily amount to any rewriting of the agreement.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown considerable courage and skill. She is right to say that the Bill applies only to prisoners in Northern Ireland: it is a Northern Irish Bill. What applies in the Republic of Ireland depends on what the Government there do to implement the agreement, to which they have also put their hand. I presume that people in the Northern Ireland Office will hear from people in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin precisely what is happening there, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give that information to the House later today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a point that was echoed by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but if they read the Bill carefully, they will see that the Scots Guardsmen are covered by it, and that it is up to them whether they want to take advantage of it. One does not have to be a member of a paramilitary organisation to be eligible for early release under the Bill; one need only have been accused and convicted of a scheduled offence.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is correct, but the point was that an accelerated release was being contended for for the two Scots Guardsmen, rather than an application under the Bill, and therein lies the difference between the two cases.

Mr. McNamara: Given the time scale that is being considered, the legislation could be on the stocks before the consultations on the case have been concluded.

Dr. Godman: Whatever the merits of the case for the early release of the two Scots Guardsmen, as a west of


Scotland Member I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that rarely does a surgery go by without someone coming along to say that the lads deserve a break. I have mixed feelings on the matter, but I make the point because, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) could not be described as a west of Scotland Member, I would bet my bottom dollar that he receives similar representations at his surgeries.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend is right. When the soldier from Yorkshire was in a similar situation, we also received such representations. In all the cases, the soldiers had been found guilty, and had, on occasions, concocted stories that the courts were not prepared to accept and that tended to cloud any claims of innocence that they might have made. I make no stronger point than that.

Mr. Robathan: It is true that, in the case of Private Clegg, a story was concocted, but Guardsmen Fisher and Wright throughout told precisely what they believed to be the truth. In my view, they committed a grievous error that led to a fatality. I make no criticism of the court, but they did not concoct a story. Perhaps the most iniquitous aspect of the matter is that they are serving their sentence whereas people who deliberately set out to commit murder are to be released.

Mr. McNamara: As the hon. Gentleman said, they committed a grievous offence, and they are therefore covered by the Bill. The previous Government, whom he supported, failed lamentably to find a suitable offence, less than murder but more than mere manslaughter, to cover members of the security forces in that position, despite the fact that the then Opposition made many efforts to get them to consider the matter seriously.
My next point concerns the sentence review commissioners, one of whom "shall be appointed chairman". The relevant clause refers to people
commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.
There were unhappy words and experiences between representatives of the two communities over appointment of members of Mr. Patten's commission on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I hope that that can be avoided this time and that there will be more careful consideration of community recommendations, so that the commissioners will be seen to have widespread support in all sections of the community.
I now turn to the main burden of my speech. The South African experience shows that, in the search for truth and reconciliation, the healing process for individuals and their communities requires considerable long-term care and attention, but that the release of prisoners is also an essential ingredient of conflict resolution. It is right that the matter should be tackled early, so that deeper sources of pain and hurt can be addressed.
The Bill provides for the inclusion of all prisoners whose convictions are conflict-related. That would include members of the armed forces. It would also include individuals who are, or who may claim to be, victims of miscarriages of justice. Some prisoners on paramilitary wings may have chosen to remain silent about their wrongful convictions. Some who have protested their innocence may have associated with paramilitary prisoners; others will not have.
I should like the Minister of State to say that the access of prisoners to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and their right of appeal in either jurisdiction will not be limited or forfeited as a result of their transfer to another jurisdiction or by accelerated release. People who fulfil the criteria and obtain accelerated release but who claim to have been victims of miscarriages of justice, or who have had their cases referred to the CCRC, should not have their position prejudiced by applying for early release.
I should also like the Minister to say that, where prisoners have declared and maintained their innocence, it will not be held against them, as it is in some cases in the rest of the United Kingdom when prisoners appeal for parole: because they claim that they never committed the offence in the first place, they have to stay in prison because they are not showing remorse.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is the integration of former prisoners. Prisoners have played a key role in this peace process. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showed when she visited the Maze prison at Christmas, it was essential that the prisoners understood the Government's intentions and what their representatives outside were seeking to achieve. The prisoners who have been released and those who are still inside will be critical in making all aspects of the agreement work and in helping the search for reconciliation.
I therefore welcome the specific commitment by the Government in the agreement, to which the parties participating have signed up:
The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities, re-training and/or re-skilling, and further education.
The prisoners' organisations must be recognised as part of the consultative process in trying to achieve that, as must the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and appropriate voluntary agencies, to develop proper resettlement and retraining plans for each prisoner.
We do not know precisely how many prisoners are involved. In answering a written question, my hon. Friend the Minister of State could not give me the number of people who regard themselves as politically motivated and who have been through the system. The figure may be around 10,000, although republicans claim that it may be as high as 20,000. If there are that many people, making a new start for them will be difficult.
All prisoners, whatever plaudits they receive at their party conferences, have disadvantages, and some will face discrimination in gaining employment. In the light of the agreement and optimism for the future, we should consider how long people released from prison after serving time for scheduled offences should keep criminal records.
A criminal record can bar someone from entering professions. It bars entry to the law, social work, teaching, banking, insurance, policing and the civil service. It may affect a person's ability to apply for a licence to drive a public carriage vehicle or taxi. It may affect access to education and eligibility for grants and other forms of assistance. Security vetting can affect great areas of employment. The operation of section 42 of the Fair


Employment Act, which the Government are reviewing, may discourage companies from employing former prisoners.
There are different aspects to the problem, and different ways have been sought to deal with it. In South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission proposed an indemnification Bill to expunge the records of political prisoners. In Canada, where there were problems in the Yukon with reintegrating the disproportionate number of former prisoners from the indigenous native American population, there is a specific clause in the Bill of Rights preventing discrimination on grounds of a criminal record. I know that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights is examining that, but reintegration of prisoners into the community merits careful consideration.
Prison officers also face an uncertain future. The inevitable reorganisation of the Northern Ireland Prison Service is likely to result in the permanent closure of the Maze prison. That will have consequences for job security and career development among the officers and staff of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. That must be carefully addressed. They will lose their jobs, when they have long served the community and been exposed to dangerous positions. How do we protect and compensate them, and give them retraining and resettlement? Downsizing will follow naturally from this legislation, and we cannot ignore our responsibilities to former prison officers.
The closures will affect local communities and their economies. I am happy to say that the Government have started such a dialogue with the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association and the people involved. That is welcome, because, unless we start creating some confidence, we could have prison incidents, unacceptable risks might be taken, and we could get political flashpoints.
If we are making changes in preparation for prisoners going out into the free world, it would be well also to consider how prison regimes might be altered so that matters such as grounds for compassionate leave, parole and weekend leave can be handled more quickly, effectively and efficiently. I suggest that we should consider carefully whether strip searching, especially of women prisoners, cannot be brought to an end.
The major point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was on whether there should be some tightening up in the legislation, or whether prisoner release should be directly associated with decommissioning in one way or another. I would reject associating releases with decommissioning. I believe that the terms suggested by the hon. Gentleman would constitute a rewriting of the terms of the Good Friday agreement. He was trying to revisit matters raised during the negotiations and rejected. It was an attempt to rewrite something that the parties to the negotiations accepted could not be done in that particular way. I believe, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in the integrity of the agreement.
I draw the attention of the House to a letter that some may have received from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, an organisation with considerable experience in dealing with

released prisoners from both sides of the community who have been sentenced for scheduled offences. NIACRO said:
An essential part of that Agreement was the commitment that the majority of politically motivated prisoners would, if the peace held, be released within two years. It is our view, based on our experience and knowledge of prisoners, their organisations and the communities from which they come, that, if the commitment to release is altered, or if new conditions are put upon it, the Agreement will fail and large scale violence will return.
I ask people who seek to alter the agreement to listen to that letter. The organisation is experienced in this matter. It would be wrong for Members of Parliament not to hear the expression of the opinion of experienced people, no matter how unpalatable it may be to them.
NIACRO continues:
Specifically—if a new condition is laid down in legislation, that decommissioning of weapons must occur before, or in some other way be concretely linked to, prisoner release, that would represent a breach of the terms of the Agreement and would be seen as the failure of peaceful means and a reason for a return to violence.
That is not my opinion, or what I want to see. It is the considered judgment of what will happen if the agreement is altered.
NIACRO goes on:
The Draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall take into account whether an organisation is fully co-operating with the Decommissioning Body in assessing the state of their ceasefire … That, in itself, represents an interpretation of the Agreement rather than its actual words; to go any further could be disastrous.
Those are NIACRO's words, not mine. I ask the House to bear that opinion carefully in mind.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that implicit in that statement is the threat of renewed violence, and that organisations are not really committed to peaceful and democratic means but are engaged in a tactical ceasefire, and will revert to violence if they do not get their way? Is he aware of another memorandum circulated by NIACRO to its staff officers, which says that the next argument to be pursued is that for an amnesty for those terrorists who have not yet been brought to justice for offences that they have committed? Does he agree with NIACRO that it should pursue such an amnesty? What does that say about NIACRO?

Mr. McNamara: On the first point, there is a real chance of an increase in violence if the terms of the agreement are not honoured and if people seek to change it. That does not mean that I approve of an increase in violence or want it. God knows, I have seen enough of terrorism. It has touched people in our families just as much as it has touched other people's. We know what it is about. I do not want to see an increase in violence. I am telling hon. Members what an organisation supported by the Government and working specifically to resettle prisoners of all sorts feels about the situation.
On the second point, about an amnesty, I have not seen the memorandum. Until I have seen its contents, I will not make a judgment on it, but it seems to me that, in whatever scheme is created, offences committed before the declaration of the second ceasefire and the signing of


the agreement are a different kettle of fish from offences committed after the ceasefire and the signing of the agreement.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the terms of the agreement are what all the parties have agreed to and that they cannot be altered, amended or varied by any party, including the Government. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister has led other participants in the negotiations and those who voted yes in the referendum to believe that the agreement could be altered by legislation passed in this House to meet some of the points that would certainly have caused them to vote no had he not given those pledges?

Mr. McNamara: I do not accept that. I do not find anything contained in the agreement, on decommissioning or other matters such as the membership of the Executive, that goes beyond what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. What my right hon. Friend said is contained in the agreement. I believe that he acquitted himself well on the issue, and that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserve merit for their sterling work to ensure that an agreement was reached by which so many of the parties could feel themselves bound.

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the wording of clause 3(9)(b)—
has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence"—
means that preparation for violence and a failure to decommission must go hand in hand? If there is no decommissioning, under the terms of the agreement that must amount to a preparation for the renewal of violence.

Mr. McNamara: That is not so. Her Majesty's Government have an Army, a Navy and an Air Force. They are not preparing for aggression: they are at peace. If someone has a gun at home—that is allowed in Northern Ireland—that does not necessarily mean that he will go out and kill people with it. If I am asked whether there should be immediate decommissioning and whether all illegal arms should be surrendered, I answer yes. But if I am asked whether I think that will happen, I answer no.
I agreed strongly with the point about victims stressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Whether this is a matter for the legislation is a point that can be considered when we see the hon. Gentleman's amendment. It was the Bloomfield report which dealt humanely and compassionately with the victims of violence. What matters more than the legislation is that the spirit of Bloomfield's recommendations should be put into operation.
This is an important Bill. The House is perhaps unhappy with it because of what it implies and what it means. It is nevertheless significant, and it should go through the House without alteration.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall begin with an historical footnote. In 1996, after the IRA abandoned the first so-called ceasefire, there was an appreciable apprehension that the loyalist terrorist organisations might resume full-scale violence. I was a fringe participant in a number of meetings and discussions with Ministers at

which, among other things, the option of early release for terrorist prisoners was considered as an inducement to prevent loyalist terrorists from returning to violence. Although I had some misgivings, I thought that the option should at least be considered seriously and purposefully. Indeed, I wrote a paper suggesting certain mechanisms and procedures that would allow the early release of loyalist terrorist prisoners to be implemented. My suggestions were not entirely dissimilar to some aspects of the Bill.
My proposals were warmly received in Dublin because the Irish Government were anxious for any movement on the prisoner issue; but the Secretary of State rejected them out of hand. He argued strongly against the details of my proposals and against any further relaxation of the sentences of loyalist prisoners.
In the course of the subsequent discussions I became increasingly aware of the terrifying implications of going down the road that has ultimately led us to the early release provisions of the Belfast agreement and of this Bill. For the time being my view may be a minority and unpopular one, but I shall state it nevertheless. I oppose the Bill in absolute terms as a matter of principle, and on pragmatic grounds as well.
I oppose the Bill in principle because there is no moral justification for the early release of prisoners. When we pursue policies in a moral vacuum, we run the risk of courting trouble. I do not accept that crimes of violence are less serious, or that their perpetrators can be treated more leniently, if they have been committed for political motives. The Bill therefore sets a dangerous precedent. It is incompatible with the rule of law; it marks the triumph of terror. The argument is morally wrong, and if we give the Bill a Second Reading tonight we shall be deeply mistaken.
The early release of prisoners is a scandalous affront to the victims of terror. Justice for them should not be cast aside lightly in the pursuit of political expediency. Early release is an intolerable pay-off for the bravery and sacrifices of the security forces—not least the past and present officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 300 of whom have lost their lives and many more of whom have suffered dreadful injuries while protecting their fellow citizens from the monstrous evil of terrorist violence.
Many people voted yes in the referendum in the hope of a better future for themselves and their children. But let us consider the sort of values on which this new Northern Ireland is to be built. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has made the point eloquently; I hope that he will forgive me for quoting him:
It will be a society which bends morality and justice for political expediency…a society governed by those whose supporters elevate killers into media celebrities…and homicidal maniacs into heroes and role models".
This is not the way to build a just and stable society in Northern Ireland. I oppose the early release of terrorist prisoners on those absolute grounds.
There is another reason why I dislike the Bill. Unless it is amended in Committee, it will be an abiding monument to a broken promise. Many Unionists voted yes in the referendum because they understood that the Prime Minister had promised a direct link in legislation between decommissioning and Sinn Fein's participation in the Executive, and between decommissioning and the


early release of terrorist prisoners—what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) has called the precondition of actual and on-going decommissioning.
Unionists believed that the Prime Minister had made that promise because the media told them that he had. The media had also told them that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and others had welcomed the fact that the Prime Minister made that promise. The Northern Ireland Office will have known of those media reports; to the best of my knowledge it issued no correction or denial. We can therefore assume that the reports were accurate. They were, after all, consistent with what the Prime Minister told the House on 6 May, which was that decommissioning was part of the giving up of violence essential for the early release of prisoners. He repeated the pledge in respect of Sinn Fein's participation in government in his referendum day letter, which appeared in the Irish News and News Letter:
Representatives of parties linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland Government if it is clear that there is to be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't mean just decommissioning".
There followed the catalogue of other measures that we have heard a number of times.
On the release of prisoners, as the Bill stands and unless it is amended, the Prime Minister has broken his promise and the people of Northern Ireland will know it. The Bill contains no direct linkage between the actual and on-going decommissioning and early release. The relevant requirement, stated in clause 3(9)(d), is that an organisation
is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
Nothing in that Act or in the Bill demands actual and on-going decommissioning as a precondition for early release, or for participation in the government of Northern Ireland. The Bill as it stands points to a Prime Minister who has gone back on his word and taken the people of Northern Ireland for a ride. He duped many Unionists into voting yes with a promise that he has not fulfilled.
If one promise has been broken, how can the people of Northern Ireland be sure that others will not be broken? What about the promises of a secure future for the RUC and about terrorists not becoming members of a new police force? Those count for nothing, especially now that we know of the Secretary of State's private dealings with the IRA on those matters. Unless the Bill is amended, the issue of early release will prove to be another obscene landmark on what was intended to be a peace process, but which, in reality, long ago became a shameful process of appeasement.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I reject utterly the observations made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Far from being an obscenity, the Bill is a political inevitability, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said in his quite remarkable speech.
I hesitate to involve myself in debates of this sort because I do not live in Northern Ireland, although I am a frequent visitor and like to think of myself as a friend of

Northern Ireland. Many of the Northern Ireland Members sitting opposite know my constituency well—especially the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). When we speak of violence and of the victims of violence and their families, we in Scotland know that we have been enormously lucky because, over the past 30 years, there has been only a handful of violence incidents. For some strange pan-Celtic reason, the General Army Council of the Provisional IRA decided not to extend its so-called military campaign to Scotland. I recall—I was teaching in Edinburgh at the time—a bomb being detonated in the ladies lavatory in Edinburgh castle in 1971 and the father of the infamous Jason Campbell bombing a Catholic pub in Glasgow not far from where my wife was born and raised, but such isolated incidents apart we in Scotland have been lucky.
However, we have lost constituents who, when serving with the security forces, have been murdered in Northern Ireland. I remember a young lad from Port Glasgow—a married man with a very young family—being murdered while out on patrol in Northern Ireland. Only two months ago, I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and saw teenage soldiers, members of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, on patrol. As an ex-service man, I had the good sense not to go over and ask, "Which constituency are you from?" I left them to their military activities, but I would have bet my last pound that one or two members of that patrol were constituents of mine, because the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders recruit widely in the west of Scotland. Nevertheless, as an individual, 1 am nothing more and nothing less than a frequent visitor to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Winnick: Speaking of atrocities, 25 people were butchered on 21 November 1974 in Birmingham, very near my constituency; we are never likely to forget that, or all the other atrocities. Regarding the unfortunate and negative speech made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), does my hon. Friend recall the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, which was introduced by the previous Government and in effect stated, on the basis of an IRA ceasefire, that prisoners would be released without any qualification whatsoever? We are to a large extent following what the previous Government did in this respect; moreover, we are laying down qualifications, which are stated in the Bill.

Dr. Godman: I recall that legislation going through the House, but I do not recall the hon. Member for Basingstoke offering the observation that it was obscene.

Rev. Martin Smyth: When the hon. Gentleman said that he was an infrequent participant in debates on Northern Ireland I was rather amazed, because we welcome his participation and the records of the House show that he has, quite rightly, participated well. We recognise the sacrifice of people from Great Britain—soldiers and civilians—resulting from the IRA campaign. That is in part why we are concerned that there has not been the mettle in this place to face down terrorism instead of encourage it.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. There is a tangled historical relationship


between Scotland and Ireland and I am proud to participate in debates such as this, but I have not experienced the violence at first hand and nor has any member of my family. I believe that the Bill, along with other measures taken by the Labour Government, will lead to those young soldier constituents of mine either coming home or serving elsewhere, perhaps as United Nations peacekeepers.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend welcomed the statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), but I am sure that he does not accept the last sentence; that the House has encouraged terrorism and has not had the mettle to face up to it.

Dr. Godman: My honourable and old Friend's attention must have lapsed for a second. I did not say that I welcomed the statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South; I said that I welcomed what he said about my involvement in debates. The hon. Gentleman knows only too well where I stand vis-a-vis his perspective on these issues.
I should like to put the Bill in the context of what was recently described to me as the "constitutional helter-skelter" in which we are involved. This has been a remarkable year for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland Ministers have played a remarkable role. In particular, I congratulate the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), on being in the Chamber this afternoon when both of us would have liked to see the Scotland-Brazil game. I blame the usual channels for not putting the debate back a day, or for not postponing the opening of the World cup until tomorrow.
There have been remarkable developments. As one who has been involved with the families of those killed on Bloody Sunday, I think that the decision to initiate a commission of inquiry into that dreadful affair is a courageous one for the Government, especially my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, to take. Looking across at Northern Ireland over the years, I never thought that within my time in Parliament we would get as far as the Belfast agreement takes us. We in Scotland got a superb result in our referendum and a similarly dramatic result was achieved in the Northern Ireland referendum. Now, Northern Ireland is to hold elections to an assembly, although I happen to think that they are being held too early and that a period of reflection is needed—[Interruption.] I thought that that remark would get a reaction from Northern Ireland Members. I base my remarks on my experience of Scotland's preparations for our elections, although the Scottish National party might thank us for being so deliberate. The Bill is part of the overall change that is taking place under the Government's direction. I am not an uncritical supporter of the Government on these matters and I shall make one or two comments to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond.
I share the repugnance felt by many over the early release of people who have committed violent crimes. Just before and after I entered the House, I was part of the Parole Board system in Scotland. I had to interview many men who had committed dreadful crimes and who were being assessed for release under licence—murderers and

others, some of whom had been caught up in the troubles in Northern Ireland. I remember over a period of six months interviewing three men who had received heavy sentences for running arms and explosives to paramilitary loyalist groups. It was my task to interview them and express an opinion as to whether they should be released under licence, so I have some experience at the coal face.
I reject the argument, advanced by some on the left, that such people have been engaged in some kind of military campaign. It is absurd and obscene to speak of people waging a military campaign in a mature parliamentary democracy. They have committed acts of terrorism. They are not military campaigners in my view. My sympathy, along with everyone else's, is with the families of those who have been murdered and with those who have suffered severe, crippling injuries.
At the same time, I share the view of Dave Wall, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, who stated in a letter that many of us have received:
Prisoner release is not an easy matter for the people of Northern Ireland or of Britain.
That is an understatement. The letter continues:
It does involve recognising that the violence of the past thirty years was politically motivated, however repugnant that violence was…It is, however, a necessary part of a negotiated political settlement to the violent conflict.
That was the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh in his eloquent speech. ' We know that this is a political Bill, but the circumstances demand such a response from the Government.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that morality, justice and the rule of law can be sacrificed because it is politically expedient to reach some sort of agreement and that the emphasis on the word political cures all? Does he believe that this is a political expedient, so all the principles on which a civilised democracy is based can be set aside to deliver what expediency requires?

Dr. Godman: On political morality, I think that I can stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are moments when unpalatable decisions must be made in the interests of the greater good of communities that we in this place seek to represent.

Mr. McCartney: indicated dissent.

Dr. Godman: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. We part company on most issues. On the rule of law, he is a lawyer and a Queen's Counsel. I am not a lawyer. I have an interest in Scots law, but I am not sure that my knowledge would get me past the first year of an undergraduate course.
In terms of the sociology of law and law making, mature parliamentary democracies must enact laws that some people find difficult to stomach—such as the hon. Member for Basingstoke and, presumably, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). The circumstances demand that we respond in the way that the Government have responded, no matter how great our sense of repugnance at the acts of some people.
When I interviewed prisoners for possible release under licence, I thought that some of them should stay in those prisons—Edinburgh, Peterhead, Shotts and elsewhere—


for the rest of their natural lives, but we had to consider whether such people could, after a period in prison, serve useful lives in the community. As I said earlier, I understand some of the serious reservations that Opposition Members hold, but to earn the trust of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland the Bill is inevitable and necessary, even though, as has been acknowledged, it is a political Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked about prisoners in the Irish Republic. In my view it is almost inevitable that the Dail will pass legislation that will make the procedures compatible. We are fellow member states of the Council of Europe and I cannot see that a discrepancy in procedures could continue for long.
I have some questions about specific details of the Bill, to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond in his winding-up speech.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman referred to changes in the law that he believes will be necessary in the Irish Republic. Does he think that the Dail will pass legislation that would release the murderer of Garda McCabe within two years?

Dr. Godman: I need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman that under the agreement such developments will take place. What the Deputies in the Dail choose to do is a matter for them, but whatever they do must take cognisance of the terms of the agreement.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the possible engagement of a psychiatrist or psychologist. My hon. Friend the Minister may consider this an esoteric point, but I suggest that it might be more useful to employ the services of a consultant psychiatrist who has experience of forensic psychiatry, rather than a psychologist. When referring to a psychologist, does the Secretary of State mean a clinical psychologist with experience in the Prison Service? I do not wish to diminish the talents of psychologists in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, but in the circumstances, serious consideration should be given to my suggestion, offered immodestly, that a consultant psychiatrist with forensic psychiatric experience should be appointed, rather than a clinical or other psychologist.
It is proposed in clause 1(2)(a) that one of the commissioners should be a lawyer. I believe that that lawyer, male or female, should have practised in Northern Ireland. Similarly, I think that civic society should be represented in the ranks of the commissioners—I am not sure how many there will be. I suggest—with my characteristic modesty—that perhaps a senior academic specialising in conflict resolution or an academic with considerable and recent experience of analysing the communities and recent developments in Northern Ireland should be appointed. I support whole heartedly clause 1(3), which states:
In making appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the Commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.
That is a categorical imperative.
I must offer a word or two on the subject of Scots Guardsmen Wright and Fisher. Several hon. Members have referred to their case and one said that they had

committed a grievous error. In my view they committed a grievous offence for which they were convicted in a court of law. Nevertheless, I believe that after five or six years in prison they should be given some sympathetic consideration. I suggested in an earlier debate that it might help them and their families if they were transferred to a prison in Scotland, but I understand that they have made no such request. It might be in their best interests to remain within the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland—I know that there have been no complaints recently about their treatment.
I reject what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said about the Bill. His remarks were disgraceful and inflammatory, but utterly typical of him. The Bill must be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House—I know that Liberal Democrat Members will and I hope that many Conservative Members, after examining it, will do likewise. It is a political Bill, but I believe that it is necessary in terms of the agreement and the expectations, needs and concerns of the people of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We are discussing a proposition that one would have thought would never be discussed in the House—the mother of Parliaments and the defender of democracy and law and order. It seems amazing that we are considering how we can let out of prison people who have committed the vilest and most terrible atrocities. It is right to say that all parties to the agreement accepted that.
It is also correct to say that I cannot find in the agreement any linkage between prisoner releases and decommissioning or anything else. I have read the agreement many times—I have analysed it—but I cannot find a rule that decommissioning must occur in 24 months. People should not try, for their own ends, to read into the agreement what is not there.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) accused the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) of making an inflammatory speech. I assure him that people in Northern Ireland feel deeply about this matter. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), talked forcefully and with passion about what happened in his area. That feeling is multiplied thousands of times in Northern Ireland. We cannot expect people simply to stand by as if this were an unimportant matter about which they have no feelings.
Feelings in Northern Ireland run very deep. People claim that they will approach these matters with great sensitivity, but the victims of violence whom I know resent that. They say, "They tell us that they will approach these matters sensitively, but how can they say that when I will receive a letter announcing that the person who murdered my father has been released when he should have been incarcerated for another 10 or 15 years?"
The people who say how deeply they feel, how much they weep and how sensitive they are should stop, because that is much resented by those who have suffered the most. I have attended more funerals—on both sides of the divide—than any other Northern Ireland Member, and I know how people feel. I make it absolutely clear to the House that people's feelings are not alleviated by the promises made by anyone in high places.
The Secretary of State has argued—I have listened to her on television and in this place—that there is a package and that, although people may not like the prisoner releases, we must take the whole package. Why is there a package? There is a package because the IRA had a gun and that gun was pointed at the two Governments and at those who were prepared to bow their knee to it. This House has debated before a treaty for peace: the famous treaty between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The House was told then that if it decided to accept the treaty, all would be well: everything would be normal, the gun would be out of Irish politics and it would be wonderful. Northern Ireland's founding father, Lord Carson, speaking in a debate in the House of Lords on that occasion, said:
One thing the noble Marquess entirely forgot to tell us was how the Government came to the conclusion that these Articles of Treaty were so much for the benefit of the country. The difficulty I have in commenting upon them at all is that, unless as a matter of mere pretence, when we are seeming to be very dignified and concerned, there is not a noble Lord in this House who believes for a moment that these terms were passed upon the merits. Not at all. They were passed with a revolver pointed at your head. And you know it. You know you passed them because you were beaten. You know you passed them because Sinn Fein with its Army in Ireland has beaten you. Why do you not say so?
The House should acknowledge tonight that the IRA beat the Governments and beat into submission those who were foolish enough to put their hands to this document. Lord Carson continued:
ought Unionist leaders to have been parties to that—Unionist leaders who had undertaken to defend Unionist policy? … the truth of the matter is that if you go on like this, if you have men in high positions stating today that A is white, and tomorrow arguing that it is certainly black, you will destroy the confidence of the democracy of this country in its rulers and in its institutions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1921; Vol. 48, c. 40–43.]
We have heard and had surprising things happen in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland three times, and on each occasion he was giving undertaking after undertaking. One of his undertakings—I have already mentioned this in the debate to the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesman—was reported widely in the Northern Ireland press. The right hon. Gentleman said that violence had to be given up, and that decommissioning was part of that. That was a clear statement. If violence is to be given up—one of the terms of the Bill is that violence must have been given up—how is that to happen if the second part of the approach is not applied?
Right hon. and hon. Members have been frank and said that the Prime Minister swayed many people. No doubt he did. He came to Northern Ireland and gave us many promises. The right hon. Gentleman promised that the IRA would never be in government until it had decommissioned. There is nothing in the agreement to that effect.
We heard a moving speech from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), but he went on to tell us that we have a debt of honour to put the Bill through the House. I have no debt of honour to men—

Mr. Mallon: I must accept that the hon. Gentleman did not hear clearly what I said. I said that the Bill places a

debt of honour on the shoulders of those parties associated with paramilitary groupings never again to threaten or use violence. That is the debt of honour to which I referred.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He knows that. I accept what he says, and withdraw what I said.
I am saying that we in Northern Ireland have a debt of honour not to the paramilitarists but to their victims, including the people they killed. I believe that there is forgiveness, but not until there is repentance. I have never heard an IRA paramilitarist express remorse for his deeds. I have listened carefully, and when paramilitarists have been pushed on television and radio, or in a public place, not one of them has ever expressed remorse. Not one of them has said, "I regret that I did that act." There is no forgiveness until there is repentance. If someone expresses remorse, we may challenge his motives, but we cannot challenge the fact that that is what he has said.
I am hearing only more and more threats from the IRA. Undertakings were given by the Prime Minister and we were told that when legislation was introduced those undertakings would be incorporated within it. That has not happened. Indeed, the argument advanced from the Government Benches is that that should not happen. It is argued that the Prime Minister was not saying, when he did say, that decommissioning was an essential part of the end of violence.
Who in Northern Ireland believes that there is an end of it? Who believes that violence has ended? I have the statistics for the first quarter of this year. They relate to the operation of the prevention of terrorism legislation and of the emergency provisions Acts. Anyone reading these statistics would not think there was any peace in the country. They tell us that 177 persons were detained in Northern Ireland under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. There were 48 applications for extension of detention, all of which were granted. Those applications related to 37 individuals, 11 being subject to more than one extension. No exclusion orders were made. In addition, 125 persons were detained for 48 hours or less, 52 for more than 48 hours. Apparently, 36 persons were charged with 62 offences, including 12 of murder and 19 firearm offences—and so on.
With these statistics, can we really say that peace has broken out? Go to Royal avenue and tell the business community that an incendiary bombing was peace. Go to those people whom the Secretary of State rightly described as having their kneecaps shot off in obscene circumstances. Go to the families that have come under terrible attack in the past days. Against that background, how can it be said that there is peace?
If that is the basis for peace, what is the peace? If the Bill passes through the House tonight and subsequently passes through the other place, and the circumstances in Northern Ireland remain the same, will the Secretary of State tell me that there is a state of peace and she can continue releasing prisoners? There is no state of peace at present.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the activities of a certain organisation that helps prisoners. However, we have only to note what such people have said in the past and what


they will continue to say. To say that the House should realise that there will be serious and terrible trouble if this matter is proceeded with is, of course, a threat.
We know that the Bill will be enacted. We know from the Conservative spokesman that the Opposition will not go too tough at the Bill. They will vote for it, and give it its first blessing. When it comes to consideration in Committee, they will find some excuse not to press amendments hard. We know what happened with the Police Bill, as it was then was, and other Bills. We know that the Bill will pass through the House.

Mr. MacKay: I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall be tabling amendments tomorrow for the Committee stage of the Bill. They will be exactly along the lines that I set out earlier. If the amendments are not accepted by the Government or if the Government do not come up with suitable options, we shall most certainly be pressing them to Divisions. We shall be expecting the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to join us in supporting our amendments.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in the Division Lobby tonight to vote against the Bill. This is a bad Bill and it should not be before us. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is right. However, the Tory party has told us what it will do, and it will do it. The Bill will become law. There will be no change in terms of decommissioning. Similarly, there will be no change in terms of terrorists getting into government. The Bill will go through and everybody knows it. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State know that that is the position. I have been long enough in the House to know whether a Bill will be rejected. The Bill will sail through the House.
However, at the end of the day, it will not be Members who represent constituencies outwith Northern Ireland who will be suffering. The ordinary people on the streets of Northern Ireland will suffer. It is wrong to suggest that the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland are in favour of the Bill. Let me disillusion those who say that. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh told us that more than 42 per cent. of those who voted in the referendum were nationalists and republicans. I think I have quoted the hon. Gentleman correctly this time. If that is so, that is more than half of the 71 per cent. Who were the other people who voted?
There are people in Northern Ireland who said no because they have convictions about the future. Others said yes because they were foolish enough to believe the Prime Minister; foolish enough to believe that all his promises would be honoured. His promises cannot be honoured, for the simple reason that the agreement must be taken as it is—all of it. If one wants to change the agreement, one does not do so here. One changes it by recalling the talks so that everyone who agreed it will have a say. That is the only way in which it can be changed, so the House is held captive to the agreement.
The legislation will go through, and the people of Northern Ireland will have sad and terrible happenings coming to them. Think of the gunmen released on the

streets and the caches of arms still available for them to use. Think of the police force that there will be moves to disarm—

Marjorie Mowlam: No.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Well, the right hon. Lady should read the agreement. Perhaps she has not read that part of the agreement. It refers to working towards the disarming of the police.

Marjorie Mowlam: Yes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That will happen within a certain period and will start within a year. We could have police disarming, gunmen on the streets with caches of arms available to them, and the gun at our head again. If the IRA then says that something more has to be done, we will bow to it again. Those are the facts which the people of Northern Ireland face.
The good thing is that we are having an election, and that people have time to reflect. A lot of people who voted yes have reflected and they are no longer saying yes. When we have the results of the election, and when we see the real representation of the people reflected in the assembly, what will the House do? Will it want to change the rules and say that it no longer goes by consensus?
First, we were told that we had to have a majority of the Unionist people and a majority of the nationalist people before there could be an agreement. When we mentioned that during the referendum, the Government hit the ceiling and said that it should be 50 per cent. plus one. There was no consensus in regard to that. With 50 per cent. plus one, we could be taken into a united Ireland.
What will happen when we have an assembly representing the real ideas? There will be no Prime Minister writing graffiti on the wall and saying, "Here are my pledges." We will vote on the issue. The Government are out of it. The big money that so liberally flowed to condition people, with the spin doctors working overtime and being well paid for it, will go, and we will have an ordinary Ulster election. What will happen then? If there are 30 Unionists, they might claim to have a strong voice. The percentage was to help the nationalists, but it will help the Unionists.
I was rather surprised, yet I should not be, that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that if, in the assembly, the republicans fail to deliver decommissioning, as is required—according to my reading of the document, it is not required, but the right hon. Gentleman says that it is—the Unionists will exercise their majority position to end the assembly. He went on to say—this makes me laugh—that the world will support the Unionists and reject the republicans. That is utter nonsense. I have heard it all before.
I was told by the Prime Minister that if the ceasefire was ever broken the IRA would be wiped out. What happened? Within a few hours of Canary Wharf being blown up, the Government were talking to the IRA. That will be tested now. The Prime Minister and the Government will be tested. Will they change? Can these changes be made? If not, what will happen when we have an assembly which mirrors the real views of the people of Northern Ireland?
The debate is not over; it is only starting. All I can say is that it is sad that, when we have so many other pressing issues to take care of, we are discussing how to let felons, criminals and murderers out of prison before they have served the time that was given to them in a court of law acting according to the laws of the United Kingdom.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that the debate so far has been characterised by extremely long speeches. Many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and, unless contributions are shorter, many hon. Members will be disappointed.

Ms Margaret Moran: I shall attempt to be brief. I support the Bill and add my congratulations to all those who were involved in the Northern Ireland agreement. As many hon. Members have said, this is an extraordinary and historic Bill. It is the first piece of legislation after the historic agreement and the overwhelming yes vote in Northern Ireland.
Listening to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), I almost felt that the Northern Ireland agreement and the overwhelming yes vote—the voice of the people of Northern Ireland—had not happened. It appears that some hon. Members—we hope this is not translated into the New Northern Ireland Assembly—wish to rewrite history at every turn. As a new hon. Member, while acknowledging that I do not have the length and depth of experience on Northern Ireland issues that others may have, I simply say to those hon. Members who constantly seek to rewrite history that that has got us nowhere, but we are now making progress, so please take that progress and let us move on.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the overwhelming euphoria after the democratic decision of the people of Northern Ireland to vote yes to the Good Friday agreement. But after every good party comes the hangover—in the case of that particular party, the pause for thought. It was inevitable that the first decision after the yes vote would be the tough one which would implement the agreement and translate it into effective legislation. The toughest one is inevitably the decision concerning the early release of prisoners. That was an inevitable decision which everyone who signed the agreement and everyone in the House recognised was the linchpin of the agreement and any future peace deal for Northern Ireland. It was always going to be a fraught and sensitive decision.
In making our decisions tonight, it is important that we commend the courage of all those who were involved in taking the political risk that was involved in the Northern Ireland agreement—the risk for peace which entailed taking the decisions that we are translating into legislation tonight.
It is important, too, that we all retain the courage, when tough decisions such as this are being made, to follow them through and not attempt to rewrite them when the going gets rough. The going will get rough, as we know from our postbags and from the media's translation of the decisions we will be making tonight. It is important that we stand firm and retain our courage, knowing that what

we are doing is delivering the decision democratically made by the people of Northern Ireland—their long-held desire for peace.
It is also important to emphasise that the criteria in the Bill are tough. Contrary to the assertions of some hon. Members, they unequivocally translate and incorporate the Prime Minister's words into legislation. There can be no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister's commitment to end violence is translated into the Bill. I refer hon. Members to clause 3. To ensure that there is no doubt about that, will my hon. Friend the Minister of State tell the House when he replies to the debate why, under clause 3(5), the third condition that the commissioners will apply is relevant only to someone who would be released immediately, and not to prisoners who might not be released for some time? It is important that the House hears the strength of that criterion.
As other hon. Members have emphasised, this is not a pick-and-mix package. One cannot pull out the sweeties and throw away the liquorice. We must take tough decisions now if we are to have peace in Northern Ireland. It is important to remember the strength of the yes vote: 71 per cent. in agreement; and, significantly, 75 per cent. of women in Northern Ireland voting for peace and an end to the boys with toys and the men with guns—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is far from nonsense. It is a democratic decision and it shows that the old politics of Northern Ireland—predominantly male politics—are long overdue for change. I hope that we shall see that change in the new assembly.
All parties who signed up to the Northern Ireland agreement knew at the outset that compromises would have to be made. They also knew that the Bill was of fundamental importance to the political settlement and that prisoners would have an important influence on the outcome of the agreement.
As I said earlier, I do not have the experience of other hon. Members in respect of prisoners' issues. However, I remember a poignant visit which I and other new Members made soon after the election last May to discuss the Northern Ireland peace process with all political parties and a number of relatives' organisations. The memory that will stay with me is of a meeting with former prisoners who, for a long time, had been at the forefront of discussions about peace. Their burning ambition to see an end to violence and a successful conclusion to the agreement was overwhelming. We shall do those prisoners an honour in ensuring that we not only pass the Bill but recognise the need to deal with issues in respect of their victims.
Other hon. Members have also emphasised the importance, in passing the Bill, of acknowledging the suffering of victims. That is not to say that we should trade suffering—far from it. I welcome the measures that I understand will be taken to address victims' needs. I hope that considerable measures will be taken in future legislation or elsewhere to deal with victims' on-going needs.
We must also ensure that victims are notified of the release of prisoners. Although it may not be appropriate to encompass that in the Bill, it is a significant issue for victims. They must at least be allowed the courtesy of knowing when the prisoner relevant to their experience is to be released. That request has been made by the Northern Ireland Victim Support group, and I hope that the Secretary of State and her team will take it on board.
It is important that steps are taken to reintegrate prisoners into the community. For good or ill, throughout the process prisoners have had a significant influence on the outcome, and they will continue to have a significant influence on the sustaining of peace in Northern Ireland. Prisoners must be afforded opportunities that will enable them to play a positive role in long-term peace in their communities.
It ill behoves Members to attempt to whip up hysteria with headlines about murderers being released and prisoners being given the key to prison doors. That is not what the Bill is about, and it does not help to secure long-term and sustainable peace in Northern Ireland. I remind hon. Members that this is not a new scheme. The House will recall the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill introduced in 1995 by the previous Government. That Bill made possible the early release of prisoners in Northern Ireland, in response to the IRA ceasefire at that time. The House may also recall that the programme of early releases, which, unlike this Bill, set no licence conditions on those released, continued against a background of on-going IRA violence, with the bombing of Canary Wharf and the Lisburn barracks, despite the fact that no arms were surrendered. The early release of prisoners has been part of the response of successive Governments—Conservative and Labour—to positive developments in Northern Ireland, which is why the Bill must be seen in that context.
The Bill is a linchpin. It is an historical and important part of translating the positive decision of the people of Northern Ireland into practice, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: For me, this is a night of regret. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) talked about hysteria. I live in Northern Ireland and my family has suffered at the hands of terrorists. I have watched hysteria in England recently when paedophiles and child murderers have been released into the community: I have seen people riot and destroy property. There has not been a single riot in Northern Ireland as a result of this Bill. There is no hysteria. People very much regret the Bill because they do not like the fact that prisoners and murderers will be released—so let us not talk about hysteria. People object to the Bill on a point of principle, not because they want to whip up hysteria.
Those who oppose the Bill—I am one of them—want to see justice done in Northern Ireland. We want justice for the victims of terrorism. If the Home Secretary announced today the release of Myra Hindley, I wonder how many hon. Members would stand up and welcome it—yet they welcome the release of people who have committed far more serious crimes, perhaps multiple murders. It is another case of double standards being applied to Northern Ireland.
May I quote the words of resident magistrate Mr. Tom Travers, who was a victim of terrorism and whose daughter Mary was murdered by the IRA? He said:
Almost 3,000 persons, men, women and children, have been murdered by terrorist criminals.
If we remind ourselves of the circumstances surrounding any one of these deaths we will, if we have even a shred of morality or compassion, shudder in horror at the special treatment now proposed for them.

The Bill differentiates between terrorist murderers and so-called ordinary criminals. What is the difference between the value of the life of an RUC constable and the value of the life of a woman who has been murdered by her husband? What difference in the value of the life of that police officer warrants the release of the person who murdered him, while the husband who murdered his wife stays in prison? What does the Bill do for the value of the lives of the victims of violence?
The Bill concedes the status of political prisoner to members of terrorist organisations. It differentiates between the crimes committed by a terrorist in Northern Ireland and the crimes committed by so-called ordinary criminals, and accords to those terrorist crimes a different status. It accords them the very status that the terrorist organisations have been seeking for years: political status. The Bill creates a dangerous precedent. Terrorism is still with us in Northern Ireland. The threat of terrorist violence remains. If we concede a special status to the crimes committed by those terrorists, we shall create a precedent that will haunt us in years to come.
One of the conditions to be met by a prisoner seeking release under this scheme is that he 
is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation.
I have been inside the Maze prison and have seen the regime there. The terrorist organisations in the Maze prison are grouped together by the prison authorities in different H blocks and are given status as terrorist organisations.
Under the Bill, to qualify for early release, a prisoner is required not to be a supporter of a terrorist organisation. The Bill defines a terrorist organisation. That is interesting, because part I of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 contains provisions on proscribed organisations and also defines a terrorist organisation. It states:
The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument … add to Schedule 1 to this Act any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in, or in promoting or encouraging, terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom and connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
That definition is repeated almost word for word in the Bill before us.
The Secretary of State told us that she will not be removing the IRA, the UVF and the UDA from the list of proscribed organisations because she still regards them as terrorist organisations. Yet members of those organisations who are prisoners and who apply for release under this scheme will no longer be deemed to be members of a terrorist organisation. How can that be? Surely the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 conflict with those in the Bill. When is a terrorist organisation not a terrorist organisation? We need to know the answers to those questions, but the Secretary of State's remarks were unconvincing.
A member of the IRA may come before the courts charged with membership of the IRA, as it is a proscribed organisation. He will be able to argue that the provisions of the Bill that allow members of the IRA to be released from prison as they are not deemed to be members of a terrorist organisation conflict with the provisions in the 1989 Act. The Secretary of State must consider carefully the implications and impact of this legislation. The IRA and other organisations will want the Secretary of State


to remove them from the list of proscribed organisations if she deems them no longer to be terrorist organisations for the purposes of the release of prisoners. If my reading of the Bill is correct, how can a person be a terrorist inside the Maze prison and a member of the IRA, and not be a terrorist outside the Maze prison and a member of the IRA? That requires clarification.

Mr. McWalter: Nelson Mandela was once deemed to be a terrorist and is now honoured as the President of South Africa. People may have one status at one time and a different status at another.

Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I accept that terrorists can reform, but that is not my point. How can someone be a terrorist inside the Maze prison and not be a terrorist the minute he steps outside the door of the prison? How can it be illegal for someone to be a member of the IRA when he is inside the Maze prison, if, the minute he steps outside as a freed prisoner, he is no longer committing an offence even though he is still a member of the IRA?

Mr. William Ross: As my hon. Friend has explained so clearly to the House, surely the implication of the Bill is that the Secretary of State intends to remove all these terrorist organisations from the proscribed list. It cannot be otherwise.

Mr. Donaldson: I am grateful for that intervention. That is what I need to know, and it is what the people of Northern Ireland want to know. If the officer commanding the Provisional IRA in the Maze prison is released from prison and is still a member of the IRA, how can he no longer be a terrorist when his colleagues in the IRA outside the prison are deemed to be terrorists under the 1989 Act? Many people in Northern Ireland will want to know the answers to those questions.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Hysteria and misunderstanding have been referred to this evening. Journalists, who wrote objectively in the national papers at the weekend, touched on that point and suggested that in two years' time the IRA will be like the Salvation Army and the Boys Brigade. I raised that issue with people at a Boys Brigade function on Saturday and they said that it would be a wonderful tribute if that were to happen—although none of us think it will.

Mr. Donaldson: I am grateful for that intervention, which brings me on to the issue of decommissioning. Under the Bill, decommissioning is only one of a range of factors that the Secretary of State will take into account in determining whether a terrorist organisation is no longer a terrorist organisation. There is considerable ambiguity in the wording of the provision. What does the Bill mean by "co-operating fully" with the commission? Is there a requirement for actual and on-going decommissioning by the terrorist organisations? If not, can we have that spelt out please?
I intend to table amendments in Committee to require actual and on-going decommissioning of paramilitary weapons by terrorist organisations, because I believe that such a test is necessary to show their commitment to the democratic process. I do not see such a provision in the Bill.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that was the previous Government's policy—known as

Washington 3—and that they were glad to drop it when the report of the international commission was produced? Will he also confirm that the issue that he has declared he will table as an amendment was debated at length in the talks process and was not included in the agreement? Is he saying that he will table amendments contrary to the terms of the agreement that his party has signed?

Mr. Donaldson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the agreement talks about full decommissioning of terrorist weapons within two years. How else will we get decommissioning if we do not require the terrorist organisations to decommission? That is the reality. I need to know, and the House is entitled to know, how the Secretary of State will interpret the provision that refers to organisations' fully co-operating with the decommissioning body. Will the right hon. Lady interpret it as a requirement for actual and on-going decommissioning? If "co-operating fully" merely means that those concerned will go and talk to the body without delivering any guns, I think that that constitutes a breach of the agreement.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman correct in asserting that the agreement provides for full decommissioning within two years? Is it not more correct to say that the agreement suggests that parties fronting paramilitary organisations retaining weapons will use such influence as they may have to persuade them to decommission within two years, although there is neither a sanction nor a requirement in that regard?

Mr. Donaldson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That is one of the reasons why I voted against the agreement: I did not think that it required the terrorist organisations to deliver on decommissioning. We heard from the IRA, in its statement following the agreement, that it would not decommission its weapons. I think it was one Danny Morrison who said recently, "We won't even decommission the rust, never mind the rifles." The House is entitled to know whether the Government will hold the terrorist organisations to their requirements. Will the Prime Minister deliver on the pledge that he gave the people of Northern Ireland that he would require the decommissioning of terrorist weapons? If he does not, he will have broken that pledge to the people of Northern Ireland.
Another question arising from the Bill is that of the extradition of fugitives from justice. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has engaged in discussions with the Irish Government about extradition procedures in the event of a released prisoner's breaching the terms of his licence under the legislation, and seeking refuge in the Irish Republic. If a prisoner who is released breaches his licence and seeks refuge in the Republic, will we be faced with the same old charade of having to wait two or three years for the Irish courts to decide that he committed a political offence and that he will not be extradited, or will the Government seek a commitment from the Irish Government that, if such prisoners breach their licences and seek refuge in the Irish Republic, they will be returned forthwith to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom to complete their full sentence? I hope that the Government will seek and obtain such an assurance from the Irish Government, in the spirit of the new co-operation that is breaking out under the agreement between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
Will the Secretary of State seek an assurance from the Irish Government that they will introduce an effective fast-track procedure to deal with the extradition of such individuals? Will she give us an assurance that the Government will pursue the extradition of fugitives from justice who currently reside in both the United States and the Irish Republic? Among their number, of course, are some of the terrorists who escaped from the Maze prison in the early 1980s. I think the people of Northern Ireland will want an assurance that the Government will continue to press for their extradition, and that they will not qualify for the early release provisions in the Bill for as long as they are outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sorry to interrupt again, but my intervention relates to that very point. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) suggested that there should be an amnesty for those whose offences were committed before the signing of the agreement. Is that already happening? Is it the case that recently a fugitive from justice in Northern Ireland, one Owen Carron, was stopped in County Fermanagh, and that, after he had telephoned someone—in this wonderful age of the mobile phone—the patrol that had stopped him was ordered to release him?

Mr. Donaldson: I understand that nowadays all leading members of Sinn Fein have a direct line to the Secretary of State. I understand that, when they are stopped by the security forces, they simply make a telephone call, following which they are speedily sent on their way.
Many of the provisions in the Bill relate to powers given to the Secretary of State. If the House passes the legislation, it will be placing considerable trust in the Secretary of State and her successors. Many people will be watching the Secretary of State: they will be watching to see how she implements the Bill, and, in particular, how she intends to implement the provisions that make her responsible for determining whether a terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation for the purposes of the release of prisoners.
Many victims of violence will also be watching the Secretary of State. They will want to know whether she will hold the terrorists to account. The Secretary of State must ensure that the terrorists deliver, and end the violence—which includes the decommissioning of weapons. Otherwise, the prisoners should stay in prison. I think that that is the message that the victims of violence would want to give the Secretary of State. Many will doubt her determination. If she fails to hold the terrorists to account, she will have failed the victims of violence and their families.
Let me again quote the words of Tom Travers:
As a victim of terrorism the provisions for the release of those qualifying prisoners underlines something of which I have been aware for a very long time, namely, that society in general, and the Government in particular, does not cherish victims at all.
The Secretary of State has a responsibility to prove that the feeling that Tom Travers and many other victims have is wrong. She has a responsibility to ensure that the Government deliver on the commitments that have been given, and to hold terrorist organisations to account by ensuring that they deliver an end to violence and

decommission their weapons. If they do not, the prisoners should stay where they belong: in prison. Justice must be seen to be done.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: When we debate the release, or early release, of prisoners, we must be aware that we are touching every nerve and every emotion of those who have been victims of violence for the past 30 years or so. We must be conscious of the hurt that we can so easily cause such people through unwarranted and inappropriate remarks.
That struck me as an aspect of the referendum campaign. The "no" campaign cleverly latched on to the three emotive issues in the agreement: prisoner release, decommissioning and policing. By the very nature of the subject matter, some of the issues are transient—for instance, the issue of prisoners, whom time or the law will release in one way or another. The general debate failed to focus on the permanency of the core issues—issues of the institutions that were established, or could be established, by the agreement. It is a pity that the debate has not focused on that.
I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in one respect. He said that a letter sent to victims announcing the release of a prisoner connected with their sorrow would not greatly ameliorate their suffering. I accept that. Contrary to the experiences of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), many of my constituents who are victims—nationalists, Unionists or members of no party—have sent me the most generous messages that I have ever received. I am talking about those who have experienced a tragic death in their families, who have themselves been maimed or have been victims of some other atrocity. I was humbled by the generosity and, if you like, the Christianity, of the sentiments that were expressed, and I resented the fact that, during political campaigns, those people's emotions were played on and used in a political way.
On 18 June 1994, within 10 miles of where I live, seven men, ranging from a 17-year-old boy to an 84-year-old man, were gunned down in a pub, slaughtered while they were watching a football match. Two months later a reserve constable was gunned down while serving customers in his shop. Presumably, the first killings were carried out by the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the second was carried out by the IRA. On 31 August 1994, on the eve of the ceasefire, my home town was subjected to a massive mortar attack that was aimed at the police station. The trajectory was over a children's playground and on that fine summer night the children were out enjoying their playtime. Just 10 months ago in July, a young person who lives near me was brutally murdered, presumably by the LVF, and his body was grossly and horribly mutilated and buried in a pit under cattle.
Those four incidents have one thing in common, apart from the fact that they all occurred in my locality: not one person has been made amenable to the law. That means that the people who perpetrated those atrocities and carried out horrible acts on a body are somewhere in the community, either in my area or in the neighbouring area, and are walking about to this day.
To play on people's fears about the release of those who have been brought to justice, found guilty and sentenced to a fixed term in prison or to a life sentence is


to miss the point altogether. We are engaged in implementing one of the processes in an historic agreement which, as many hon. Members have said, has been endorsed by the vast majority of people in the north of Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. The Bill is part of that agreement, and I resent being accused by hon. Members, some of whom are not in their places, of somehow lacking morality and principle because I support the legislation. We have put together a delicate package with inevitable pros and cons—some of it I do not like and some of it my political opponents do not like. But together we have forged a sensitive agreement and—more important—it has been endorsed by the people of the north of Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland.
The hon. Member for North Antrim, who is not now in his place, quoted at length from what Lord Carson said some 80 years ago. Time has passed; our society has evolved. Politics has moved a million miles since that time, and this is our opportunity to lay to rest once and for all the violence in Irish politics. There is no guarantee that we will do so, but we have an opportunity to reach the holy grail that has evaded us not just for decades but for centuries.
I ask those who oppose the legislation—and especially those who do not live in my community and who have not suffered as my people, whether Unionist or nationalist, have suffered over the years—to try to understand that we are trying to put together an acceptable arrangement. It is not perfect by any means and it requires some matters to be dealt with in a way that will enable the agreement to get widespread support, and that is what the legislation is about. I shall not debate the nuts and bolts and the paragraphs in the Bill. I simply say that those who oppose it oppose the will of the people of Northern Ireland, and that is fundamentally undemocratic.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I shall try to be brief. No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will remind me if I am still speaking at the end of 10 minutes.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that we should look to the future and not to the past. It is distressing that Irish politics is so often discussed in terms of the past. I do not feel responsible for the potato famine, but it is often brought up by Irish nationalists when they discuss the relationship between the United Kingdom and the south of Ireland.
I shall deal first with the case of Guardsman Fisher and Guardsman Wright to which hon. Members referred. Those two young men committed a grievous error. They were found guilty of murder and, technically, I am sure that that was right. However, they were sent to Northern Ireland by this United Kingdom Parliament—by the British state, as I am sure the IRA would say—not to do their own will but to do their duty in preserving public order in Northern Ireland. As I said, they made a grievous error which resulted in a regrettable death and they were found guilty of murder.
To compare two young men who went out to do their duty to this country with some of the people whose release from prison we are discussing is quite wrong. As every hon. Member knows, some of those people were guilty of the most unspeakable acts of barbarism and torture in both communities. We should view the case of Fisher and Wright with a great deal more sympathy than has been

shown so far. I was first contacted about the case about four years ago during the judicial process. Four years later, they are still in gaol, and most hon. Members and the Government would agree that they should be released forthwith or as soon as possible.
The Bill as a whole is rotten, but I am not minded to oppose it. It is about freeing people who have been involved in all sorts of barbaric acts. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) rightly said, those people are not political prisoners: they have all been convicted of crimes. I do not live in Northern Ireland, but I spent a long time there. Too many of my Northern Ireland friends have died and I have been to too many funerals not to feel strongly about this issue. However, we must put aside our personal feelings and look to the future. I should like to quote a resolution with which I am entirely in agreement:
Conference believes that progress can only be made towards a lasting political solution in Northern Ireland when the gun has been removed completely from Irish politics.
That is a sensible resolution, because a political solution must have no reference to the gun. That resolution was passed by the Labour party at its annual conference in 1994.
Getting rid of the gun and agreeing to the Bill are part of the peace process. However, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, there is not yet peace in Northern Ireland. There are punishment beatings: there were two last week in west Belfast. The punishments involve knee-cappings and weapons and they are extremely bloody affairs. A Mr. Knocker was murdered recently in Fermanagh, and the perpetrators were almost certainly people who were connected to the IRA. There were murders by the IRA and, I think, the UVF before Christmas. They happened during the peace process and people were briefly removed from the talks, but those organisations may be given legitimacy in the assembly.
Has the Minister or the RUC any information or intelligence to the effect that the Sinn Fein information centre in west Belfast has been co-ordinating some of the intimidation, threats and punishment beatings? My intelligence is that the Sinn Fein information centre has been responsible for warnings that were given to people to leave the Province. That has been going on for years.
As the Prime Minister said, the release of prisoners must be linked to decommissioning. I was not present to hear him say so, and cannot therefore comment on the exact words. However, nobody has denied them and what he said appears to be so. In 1996, when giving the John Smith memorial lecture in Antrim, the present Secretary of State said:
These fears can only be addressed, to my mind, by all parties signing up to the six Mitchell principles—which includes a commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".
I agree with her entirely.
In April, the Prime Minister said:
We said that we want the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … Meanwhile, it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations held Executive office in the assembly while they continued to be engaged in or to threaten terrorism."—[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 811–12.]
In 1993, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said that "all" weapons must be handed in before talks could go on. Later, as an article of good faith, that demand was reduced to "some" weapons.
I should like to quote from the Mitchell principles, because some people may have forgotten them. The document states:
parties to such negotiations affirm their total and absolute commitment:
To the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations;
To agree that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission;
To renounce unto themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force …
To urge that 'punishment' killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions.
We have had negotiations, the agreement, the referendum and now this Bill, but there has been no decommissioning of weapons and punishment beatings and violence continue. What does this peace mean? Does it mean merely a ceasefire, which may be temporary, like others? The Bill assumes lasting peace. I fully understand that prisoner releases are of enormous importance to both sides of the peace process, but so is decommissioning. The two must be clearly linked. Sinn Fein will be standing in the assembly elections and thinks that it can be part of the process, yet it is inextricably linked to the IRA, which has said, no, it will not decommission its weapons.
All hon. Members understand that, to achieve peace, there must be compromise. Many compromises have been unpalatable to people on all sides of the argument. I have seen this Government, the previous Government and the Unionists make compromises, but I have yet to see the IRA make any compromise at all.
The Secretary of State said that she wanted to see decommissioning, as do we all. She also said that, as the Bill states, prisoners would not be released if they were found to be supporters of terrorist organisations. If Sinn Fein is inextricably linked to the IRA, which is not laying down weapons and is to remain a proscribed organisation, how can IRA prisoners be released and Sinn Fein take part in the peace process? That does not add up. The time for compromise and fudge is past.
Under the Bill, prisoners will not be released until their parent organisation is "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning body. The problem is that we do not know enough about that body. We do not know its terms of reference, powers or responsibilities. More than anything else, we do not know what "co-operating fully" means. That leaves a sense of fudge, misrepresentation and misunderstanding, which gives a very dangerous impression and may be regarded as the first step toward betrayal of the undertakings so clearly given by the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the referendum. The Bill must define clearly, explicitly and beyond any reasonable doubt exactly what "co-operating fully" means.
I should like to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. There is already a fear of gangster war and of turf wars in Northern Ireland. There is a huge stock of weapons, and there are many people who are able to use such weapons. A front organisation for the IRA, Direct Action Against Drugs, has been carrying out barbarous attacks on people in west Belfast. There was the death of Mr. Knocker, who was alleged to have been—I have no idea whether it is true—a drugs dealer. I understand that

IRA terrorists have done rather well out of this conflict, and that some of them used to retire to villas on the Costa del Sol.
I am concerned that, given the large stock of weapons in circulation, a Russian-style Mafia will develop. If those weapons are not removed, there will be no real peace in the Province. The Government must ensure decommissioning; the release of prisoners must be the best lever by which to achieve that. The requirement of decommissioning should be stated clearly in the Bill, and I hope that it will be by Third Reading.
At the moment, the Bill is a mess; there is too much fudge in it. As I have said before, lasting peace in Northern Ireland cannot be built on sand or fudge. It must be achieved on the understanding and with the backing of everybody. The referendum result went the way that I wished, but, if the Bill is not clear and unequivocal, stating that prisoners are released only when decommissioning has taken place, it is unlikely that it will achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this very important debate. Although I was present for the beginning of the debate, I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not having heard all the speeches. I think that I missed only two or three.
I have listened with care to the speeches of those who oppose the Bill. Although I respect the honesty and sincerity of their contributions, I cannot help but comment that those who are fundamentally opposed to the release of prisoners are failing to listen to what the people of Northern Ireland are telling them. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and others. Undoubtedly, the decision taken by the people in the referendum on 22 May was overwhelmingly in favour of the Good Friday agreement.
In the presence of Unionist Members of Parliament, I feel, strangely, that I have somehow to justify my contribution to Northern Ireland debates by establishing my credentials; otherwise, as I have heard in sedentary remarks, one's comments are merely dismissed as if they are uninformed.
Since I was elected last year, I have spent some considerable time acquainting myself with the politics and the people of Northern Ireland, although, before that, I knew them well because my mother was born in Northern Ireland and I spent a great deal of my childhood there—quite apart from time spent there as an adult with my family and extended family. I know the problems well. I have made a point of spending time speaking to the people of Northern Ireland, particularly through these important times. I have also been a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.
From recent contact with people in Northern Ireland and discussion about politics, it is clear to me that those who voted for the agreement did not seek to pick and choose which parts to support—nor should politicians. The Northern Ireland electorate are sophisticated; they understand the issues involved in their politics. They recognise that parts of the agreement could be interpreted as perpetrating injustices on either community, or, indeed, parts of communities, but they bravely chose the agreement as the only way forward.
An essential part of the agreement is the early release of the majority of politically motivated prisoners, against certain conditions. The agreement requires the British and Irish Governments to put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of qualifying prisoners. It goes on to express the intention that all such prisoners will be released, should circumstances allow it, within two years of the programme coming into effect. The Bill is designed to fulfil that requirement on the part of the British Government. I am clear in my mind that that part of the agreement is supported by a large majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and therefore feel obliged to support the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is entirely correct: any transferred prisoners who are serving their sentences in the Republic of Ireland are subject to the jurisdiction of that country. That is why, on the prisoners' transfer, it was necessary for an undertaking to be given ensuring that their tariffs would he served. They were to be subject to the jurisdiction of that country, and control of their release could not be determined by this country.
Paragraph 1 of the agreement's provisions on prisoners requires the Government of the Republic of Ireland to establish in that country a mechanism for the accelerated release of prisoners. Accordingly, one should expect that, eventually, all qualifying prisoners imprisoned in the Republic of Ireland will qualify for accelerated release under the Republic of Ireland's programme. Under the agreement, it is appropriate that they should be so released. Had they not been transferred, this legislation would have covered them, and they would have qualified for accelerated release under its mechanisms.
There is therefore no injustice, or distortion of justice, in the agreement. Had those prisoners who have been mentioned in this debate remained in prisons in the United Kingdom, they would have qualified for release under mechanisms provided in the Bill.
Throughout the past decade, as peace has been discussed in Northern Ireland, it has always been clearly understood that prisoners were a central issue in the peace process. That fact has been conceded in this debate by right hon. and hon. Members, not least by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). It has been understood also that prisoners' early release would be crucial to the success of any agreement. Any peace process in Northern Ireland is likely to be successful only if it commands the respect and support of more than only the broad middle ground of society.
It has been estimated—I have recently re-read the estimates, to refresh my memory—that there are more than 10,000 former prisoners in Northern Ireland, many of whom have been convicted of politically motivated crime. If that statistic is true, the extended families of former prisoners must amount to at least 50,000 people, which is a significant proportion of Northern Ireland's total population. No all-inclusive peace process could ignore those people. No all-inclusive process could not deal with the prisoner issue.
It was therefore inevitable that, in settling the prisoner issue, many people would find the solution distasteful and unpalatable. It was also inevitable that, if there were to be a peace process, the issue had to be addressed at some stage.
I realise that application of the amnesty to perpetrators of the awful crimes that have been committed in the past three decades in Northern Ireland is a price that many—but not all—victims and families of victims think is not worth paying. I have heard expressed, and understand, the feelings of some victims and their families. However, in the circumstances, I do not agree with them. I do not want to be mealy-mouthed about that.
Although a society that is emerging from violent conflict should not forget the appalling cost of the intervening years, the needless and senseless loss of life, the pain and suffering of families or the devastation of communities, the only true insurance against further decades of such senseless and needless violence is a strong and lasting peace process that looks forward. That cannot be achieved without the commitment of the communities that bred and nurtured the perpetrators of that violence in the first place. Dealing with the prisoner issue is the key to such a commitment.
Those who oppose the Bill describe the future of society in Northern Ireland as "polluted by freed terrorists". The hon. Member for Blaby suggested that there would be a Russian-style Mafia. The Bill's opponents describe a society dominated by terrorists who make important political decisions while continuing their trade of violence. However, in so doing, they ignore the realities of the immediate history of Northern Ireland. Since 1985, 438 republican, loyalist and other lifers have been freed. Of that total, only 18 former prisoners have had their licence revoked and been recalled to prison, and only two—one from each faction—have been reconvicted of terrorist offences. Moreover, former prisoners and internees have already played a remarkable role in rebuilding the peace process. Others—too numerous to mention—have distinguished themselves as community leaders and visionary politicians in Northern Ireland.
Under the normal remission tariffs which already apply, the great majority of prisoners serving fixed sentences would be free by the agreement's July 2000 deadline. Today, I read statistics suggesting that there were 340 qualifying prisoners, of whom 269—leaving only 71—would be released under current remission tariffs. The legislation will enable about half the prisoners to win accelerated release in coming months, once the new sentence review commissioners get down to considering individual cases. The other half of the prisoners will be released sooner than was scheduled. Those statistics are neither remarkable nor earth shattering.
The number of people who will be affected by the Bill and the agreement is small compared with the numbers who have already been released from prisons in Northern Ireland—most of whom have not reoffended, and the vast majority of whom are playing a major contributory role in society.
Clause 10(7) allows the Secretary of State to vary by order the two-year release period. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to tell the House in what circumstances the Secretary of State would consider it to be justified to vary the release period.
I should like also to mention a larger issue—with which I trust that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), will deal in his reply. About three times in this debate, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) refused to allow me to intervene in his speech—although perhaps, having


heard the sedentary remarks that were made, I understand why he did not allow me to do so. I now ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to answer the question that I tried to ask earlier. How can the hon. Member for Bracknell commend the agreement—which he described as "truly momentous", for which, as he told the House, he campaigned, and which he was "delighted" had obtained a yes vote—but describe the Bill as undermining the rule of law? The Bill attempts only to enact in the United Kingdom the Government's commitment, made in an agreement for which he himself had campaigned.
I perceive that, as an hon. Member, it is my duty to respect the will of the people of Northern Ireland, as expressed in their resounding yes in a referendum on the Good Friday agreement. The Bill reflects the agreement, as accepted by the people of Northern Ireland. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Robert McCartney: There seems to be a suggestion in the House that those who oppose the agreement and the Bill are somehow wreckers and opponents of peace. All such suggestions are quite untrue. The 275,000 people who voted against the agreement are all in favour of peace. I am certain that all of them desire a permanent end to violence. All of them wish for a secure future for their children.

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: No.
Perhaps, like myself, those people feel that a peace or future that is allegedly based on the good will of terrorists is a very poor foundation for the future of their children. They perhaps also fear that an agreement that appears to ignore—because it is not politically expedient to do otherwise—the principles of the rule of law, of morality and of justice does not offer a secure basis for a future permanent and lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
I opposed the agreement, and I oppose the Bill, because I believe in and desire peace. I wish to have a permanent end to violence, and to ensure a secure future for the young people of Northern Ireland. However, I am equally convinced that this agreement will not offer any of those things. Why do I say that? Because the peace process out of which it has been produced was based on terror—it was based on violence and the threat of further violence, if those who had the weapons of violence were not appeased and their desires were not propitiated.
That is exactly what happened in this agreement. It is totally and completely based on the appeasement of terrorism. The Bill, which purports to release the perpetrators of the most horrific and violent crimes back into society, is but one instalment in an on-going process of terrorist appeasement.
History records no example of a minority group using political violence to achieve its purposes which has ceased to use violence while it has continued to be successful in achieving its purposes, until it has either achieved its ultimate aims or been defeated by democracy. Those who have used political violence successfully do not stop using

it unless they are defeated by the forces of the rule of law, by morality and the principles of democracy. Sinn Fein-IRA will be no exception to that historical principle.
I say Sinn Fein-IRA, because the Secretary of State on Monday last week and the Prime Minister last Wednesday both confirmed that those two groupings were inextricably linked, which means that they are incapable of being separated. So we have Sinn Fein protesting its democratic potential, and the IRA, with which it is inextricably linked, saying that it will never decommission until its ultimate political aims and ambitions have been achieved.
Where does that leave this much-vaunted agreement and process? At the Sinn Fein Ard Feis, when politically endorsing the Belfast agreement, speaker after speaker stated, to acclamation, that they would continue to adhere to their traditional policies of military violence and political advancement—the twin-track approach. Where does that leave this agreement?
We have heard much about the agreement and how it is the product of the democratic voice of the people of Northern Ireland, but perhaps the House should have some insight into how it was achieved—by subjecting the Northern Ireland electorate to a massive propaganda campaign, the like of which has never been equalled in British constitutional history. Absolutely no stone went unturned. There was an endless stream of the politically famous from all parties and a collection of celebrities, from Richard Branson to Bono of U2, to you name it. All of them afforded compliant media with opportunities for an orgy of publicity for a pro-agreement vote. It was a disgusting exhibition of Government power.
The late Isaiah Berlin wrote 40 years ago that few Governments have much difficulty persuading the people to do what that Government wish. In the 40 intervening years, the techniques of persuasion and the technology for so doing have increased one hundredfold, and every one of them was employed during the agreement.
Furthermore, two weeks into the agreement, I discovered that the Government were paying for detailed focus group reports and private polls at substantial expense, and that they were providing that information to the parties known to be in the yes camp. Only when I threatened to take the matter to court because the information was being produced with public funding, was it handed over to parties in the no camp.
The last lot of opinion polls on the Wednesday before the agreement showed that, if the don't knows had continued to transfer to the noes at the rate that they were doing, the result would have been about 60:40, or perhaps even better than 40 per cent. for the no camp. At that point, when the yes campaign was terrified of the result, Downing street took over, the Prime Minister appeared again in Northern Ireland, and the pledges were given.
I give that background because those pledges are reckoned by all the pollsters to have been central and significant in the result that was ultimately obtained on Friday 22 May—absolutely central. At this point I must say that I entirely agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The agreement is a multi-party agreement. It was entered into by all the parties and the two Governments, and it cannot be altered, amended or varied except with the agreement of all the parties to it.
What happened was that the Prime Minister realised in the final week of the referendum campaign that the pro-Union electorate were totally unhappy about two


things—the release of prisoners and the fact that, under the terms of the agreement, there was no clear direction that decommissioning would have to take place before representatives of Sinn Fein could take Executive office. On that basis, the Prime Minister attempted to reassure the pro-Union electorate with his pledges, which were all understood in Northern Ireland to mean that there would be decommissioning, and that it would have to take place before Sinn Fein representatives could take their places in any Executive.
Sinn Fein, Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. McGuinness have repeatedly reasserted—the hon. Member for Hull, North was correct—that this is an agreement and that they are going to hold the Government to its terms. They are going to insist that, if members of their party are returned in sufficient numbers to allow them to have two members in ministerial posts in a Northern Ireland Executive, under the D'Hondt principles they will be entitled to them without that being in any way connected with any obligation to decommission.
The truth is that, because of the desperate circumstances that faced the Prime Minister and the yes vote in the final weeks, he has entered into a truly Faustian bargain. Sinn Fein-IRA will not let him out of that bargain, but he will be called on by the pro-Union community to go back on it, in the form of legislation. That is the crux of the Bill.
I could never understand the position of the Conservative Opposition or that of some Ulster Unionist Members who kept saying that things could be put right by the legislation, because I have never believed that, under the terms of the multi-party agreement, any party, including the British Government, could alter it unilaterally by legislation without the agreement of all the other parties.
The Government will escape from that dilemma by means of deception, fraud and fudge. The Bill is as full of political fudge as a village fete is of the real stuff, but it will have to be dissected and cleared up, because, sooner or later, the people of Northern Ireland, who, we have been told, are athirst for peace, will call on the Prime Minister to fulfil his pledges.
The claims made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about there being no new preconditions, such as linking the Bill to decommissioning, were never made loudly and clearly by his party in the referendum campaign, because that would have blown the whistle on the true situation: that such preconditions could not be secured. The Government are not, and should not be, in a position to link decommissioning with the agreement, which stands on its own feet, but I take issue with the hon. Gentleman, because that was not made abundantly clear in the referendum campaign, as it is now.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: I will in just a moment.
In furtherance of the plot, the SDLP ran two separate pieces of election propaganda: one, for the soft Unionists, who it hoped would vote yes, was in completely muted colours and talked about partnerships, sharing and all the things that we can do together; the other was a much tougher piece of straightforward nationalist propaganda,

talking of the achievements of the SDLP, from 1981 and the totality of relationships up to its final achievement of the agreement en route to its goal of a united Ireland.
When we speak of the democratic views of the people of Northern Ireland, we should bear it in mind that they have yet to make a decision on the promises and assurances that were given to them about what would happen if they voted yes.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way now?

Mr. McCartney: Not just at the moment. I want to talk about the release of prisoners, which is related to decommissioning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I do not intend to give way.

Mr. McNamara: You said that you would.

Mr. McCartney: I said that I would, in due time, and I have not yet finished my point.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the victims. There have been victims in Northern Ireland since 1969, and there are now more than 3,000, but until it became necessary to secure their agreement to, or at least acquiescence in, the release of convicted criminals, their feelings were not even considered.
The victims were ignored for the best part of 30 years, but, when it became necessary to assuage their rightful indignation and anger and that of their relatives, suddenly Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was called into operation, and a physical memorial in Londonderry was proposed. Victims became the focus of Government attention only when their good will—and the good will of the community that supported them—was needed to allow convicted criminals and terrorists to be set free.
There has been a great deal of talk about those gentlemen being released and how money should be spent on reintegrating them into the community, and we have heard at length about what NIACRO and others have to say about them. When the Secretary of State went to persuade those people that they should support the ceasefire, the television cameras followed her into the so-called loyalist compound, and some of them were filmed against graffiti and murals. Michael Stone, who is about to be released even though he murdered five people and injured many others, was filmed against a mural that said, "Yabbadabbadoo, any Fenian will do" and, "Kill them all, let God sort them out".
I am speaking about so-called loyalist terrorists, because I want to make it abundantly clear that I despise, loathe and detest terrorists of any kind, serving any claimed cause, be they green, orange or multi-coloured. They are loathsome, despicable people, who should be dealt with regardless of whom they claim to represent.
We are told that, if those people are to be released back into society, they will be required to give up associations with the organisations that spawned them. When the Balcombe street murderers were released from prisons in the Republic to attend the Ard Feis, they arrived as absolute heroes and were given an enormous welcome, because they were seen as violent terrorists, exercising the military strategy of Sinn Fein, which is inextricably linked with them, as they are the cutting edge of its organisation.

Mr. Mallon: I agree with the Prime Minister about new preconditions. A press release on the Bill said:


As the Prime Minister said during the Referendum campaign, the following factors will be taken into account. They are not new preconditions but are essential to help us to reach an overall judgement".
My party opposed the Washington 3 precondition. We oppose it now. We are going to insist that everyone abides by the agreement that we have reached.
On our two sets of literature, there was only one set during the referendum. One person became a little urgent about fighting the assembly election, and that is why our election manifesto went out on the last Sunday. I am not sure that that is a hanging offence.

Mr. McCartney: I never suggested that it was a hanging offence. The two sets of election literature were clearly aimed at two different sets of people, and had two different purposes.
On the release of convicted criminals, the term "prisoner" has overtones of prisoners of war or people fighting according to the rules of the Geneva convention. Let me say something about the connection between these freedom fighters, these released prisoners and what they actually do.
Sinn Fein has 38 candidates for the assembly elections, of whom more than half have criminal convictions of a fairly serious nature. The Sinn Fein candidate in East Londonderry killed three soldiers. Mr. Paul Butler, the Sinn Fein candidate for Lagan Valley, shot a 50-year-old RUC reserve constable in the back of the head. Joe Cahill, aged 78, was once sentenced to death for murder. Gerry Kelly, its representative in Belfast, North, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the Old Bailey bomb, as a result of which one person was killed and 250 injured. In his escape from the Maze, he shot a prison warder in the head.
When I hear hon. Members talk of all the democracy, benefits and peace that the agreement is going to pour forth upon the people of Northern Ireland, I am reminded of a single instance that sums it all up.
My party's candidate in the election in Belfast, North served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for seven years. He have will have among his opponents the following: John White of the Ulster Democratic party, who hacked to death Senator Paddy Wilson and his girl friend, stabbing each of them 54 times; the aforesaid Gerry Kelly of Sinn Fein, who injured 250 people and killed one at the Old Bailey; and another loyalist, Mr. Billy Hutchinson, one of these Progressive Unionists, the radical politicians we heard about earlier. He was involved in the casual killing from a car of two Catholics.
That is the democracy that results from the agreement—three candidates who between them have murdered six people. Is that what democracy and this agreement are about? Is that the true basis upon which there will be lasting peace in Northern Ireland? Those who believe that should buy a few volumes of the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen.

Mr. William Ross: I have one slight correction for the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). The Sinn Fein member who is standing in East Londonderry, or at least one of

them, Mr. O'Kane, is a fairly near neighbour of mine. He did not kill three soldiers, but three RAF mechanics. At his trial, he said that, if he got the chance, he would do it all over again. That puts the matter in clear context.
As time is moving on and several hon. Members wish to speak, I shall try to be briefer than usual.
There have been several claims about the number of persons who will be released early under this legislation. The standard excuse, which has been made by many, including some members of my party, is that many of those prisoners would be out in two years in any case. That is true, but it is also a fact that the prisoners are already the beneficiaries of a generous shortening of their sentences. That said, 79 of those who will be out in two years would have had very long periods of imprisonment ahead of them but for the Bill.
I will not weary the House with the details this evening, but they are set out in Hansard in response to questions that I have tabled in recent weeks. There is one person whose release date in Great Britain was 2019. Several others would have served nine or 10 years into the next century. They will all be out in a couple of years. Those who are to be transferred to the Irish Republic will no doubt be even more generously treated, unless they happen to have shot a Garda officer in the Republic, in which case they will do their 40 years.
Such people will be released only if the organisation to which they belong is committed to purely peaceful and democratic action. We suffer from a barrage of voices telling us that that is the case with regard to the IRA and the other terrorist groups. In fact, there is a scarcely a day, or more accurately a night, on which acts of violence are not committed by members of those organisations or by their subcontractors to ensure their continuing dominance in some areas of Northern Ireland. That violence has been calmly ignored by the Government and all those who laud the agreement. Given that that is the case, I have no confidence that this Secretary of State will specify any of those organisations as terrorist.
The Bill will impact on existing legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) considered in some depth which organisations are terrorist. It seems to me that, if the terrorist organisations simply say the correct soothing words, they will no longer be illegal bodies, and there will be no prosecutions for membership.
That leads to the question of extraditions from the Irish Republic and elsewhere of people sought by the RUC in connection with terrorist acts. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is here, because one example is Rita O'Hare, one of the wanted terrorists with whom she is on speaking terms. I admit that the relationship appears to reach the huggy-feely stage only when they are in the Irish Republic, because the woman concerned is a bail absconder in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State no doubt knows that the woman went on the run after recovering from her bullet wounds sufficiently to travel. The wounds were sustained while she was attempting to murder soldiers in Northern Ireland. She did not repent of her activities. Indeed, she continued with them, because she later served three years in the Republic for trying to smuggle explosives inside her body into Portlaoise prison.
Rita O'Hare's defence against extradition to Northern Ireland was upheld by the Irish courts on the ground that the attempted murder charge was a political offence,


thereby illustrating the great difficulty of getting an extradition from the Irish Republic. Her very defence goes a long way to proving that she was guilty of the charge brought against her. Clearly she is ideally qualified to advise the Secretary of State on extradition matters, and will not, I am sure, be slow to offer such advice.
However, I remind the right hon. Lady of section 18 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which states:
A person is guilty of an offence if he has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance … in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of such an act,
and fails without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as soon as reasonably practicable … in Northern Ireland, to a constable or member of Her Majesty's Forces.
I should be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State has complied with that section with regard to her contacts with the loathsome woman with whom she seems to find so much in common. The Secretary of State should also look up the penalties, which I think she will find of interest.
Of course, what applies to the case of Rita O'Hare also applies to the other assorted thugs and murderers who will be released under the provisions of the Bill. We can also expect reoffenders to leave the United Kingdom jurisdiction, and they will never be extradited for trial for any offences.
The Bill also raises concerns about the position of those awaiting trial and sentence, and those who may yet be charged with murders or other crimes committed long ago. Some other neighbours of mine are in the courts in Belfast this week for attempted murder of members of the RUC in Dungiven.
When all has been said and done—a lot has been said today—the bottom line is that a large number of persons who have been found guilty and sentenced for very terrible acts will be out of prison early, long before their sentences would normally be completed. That is nothing short of a blatant corruption and interference with the judicial process, the concept of punishment for crime and the rehabilitation and reform of prisoners.
The passing and application of the Bill will confirm the IRA's claim, certainly in the minds of its members and supporters, that it is engaged in a just war, and that those convicted are not only prisoners of war but political prisoners rather than murderers and thugs. That is a psychological thing with the IRA, its supporters and other terrorist organisations, which so few people in this place seem to understand.
I believe that the consequences of accepting the IRA view of its terrorist campaign are vast, and can only intensify the deep and real contempt felt by many of the law-abiding citizens for those who have conceived and are carrying into effect this policy of abject surrender to the diktats of murderers. That is what the Bill is really about. It is an abject surrender to the diktats of murderers, and we had better realise exactly what we are putting our hand and our votes to.

Mr. Tony McWalter: I rise partly because a large number of those who have spoken are well qualified to speak on these matters, whereas I feel

very under-qualified as I have lived all my life in England and my association with Ireland is through my family—but perhaps someone who is not so well qualified has a role to play in the debate, which is often characterised too much by certainty and not enough by probability, uncertainty and a feeling of trying to tease out new solutions rather than being convinced that one has the solution all along and that all that needs to happen is for everyone else to agree.
Some material points have been made—I think particularly about decommissioning—but I am not sure whether the appropriate place to put firm assurances about decommissioning is in the Bill or in a translation of what is clearly in the Bill into the political process through the good offices of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McWalter: In a moment. I certainly agree that we have to ensure that the conditions spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others are secured by the time we come to release from custody anyone who is guilty of terrible offences.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has answered the question that I was about to ask. I infer from what he says that his reading of the text of the agreement, which I submit is the critical issue, is as one with the Prime Minister's, as expressed to the House in his answers in Prime Minister's questions on 6 May.

Mr. McWalter: Indeed, but I submit to the hon. Gentleman and others that it is not clear whether we need to incorporate those ideas and commitment into statute, or whether the Bill will in the end provide us with a facility for ensuring that those commitments are honoured in the deed.
My feeling of under-qualification for the debate extends to other things, but my experience of Northern Ireland—or as some would call it, the north of Ireland—is characterised by an extraordinary gulf between what I have found there and what I have found in my own England. Although we have heard stirring speeches from, among others, the United Kingdom Unionist Member, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), the fact is that there is a great gulf.
For example, there are not many places in England where there is a huge gap between people in how they describe a town. If I say that I am driving to Londonderry, I seem to be on one side of the fence. If I say that I am driving to Derry, I am on the other side of the fence. I had better make sure which I say when I am in the Shankill road or the Falls road. It is strange for those of us who are English that so much should ride on a word—even our life if we get it wrong in the wrong circumstances.
When I have been to Northern Ireland, I have often encountered phenomena that English people find perplexing. I have been on a bus that never reached Oxford Street bus station because a bomb went off 10 minutes before. I have been in a pub in Castlewellan that had no windows because it had been blown apart by a bomb. However, one of the things that I have not experienced—I understand that this makes a great difference—is how it feels to have a member of my family blown up by a bomb. My uncle lived in Castlewellan, but he was not a victim.
I understand that the passion in the debate about victims is vital. I resent the suggestion, made by the hon. and learned Member for North Down, that victims come into the process right at the end. One of the extraordinary things about the debate is that so many of the victims have been prepared to construct a testimonial to their murdered loved ones. They say that there could be no better testament than for them to work in the memory of their loved ones to construct a lasting peace. That is something with which those of us who are debating these matters and who support the agreement must work constructively.
We have in Northern Ireland a society in which many of us have aspirations for radical change because we want our fellow countrymen and British islanders to enjoy a life that the rest of us in these islands usually enjoy.
By way of illustration of the problems in Northern Ireland, I offer the following story. I went for a job at the university of Ulster in Coleraine. Some hon. Members may think that the selection board was wise not to select me. In any case, from a shortlist of three I somehow managed not to get the job—

Mr. William Ross: Two did not.

Mr. McWalter: The hon. Gentleman's pals were probably on the panel.

Mr. Ross: No, they were not.

Mr. McWalter: When I walked into the hotel, a policeman asked me if he could check my bag. Being English and having a strong respect for policemen, I of course agreed. He removed the contents of my bag—Marks and Spencer shirts, and so on. He also asked if he could inspect my toilet bag. It contained razors and a tube of Colgate toothpaste, which the policeman squeezed out to make sure that it was not Semtex. A society in which that can happen is a society in need of radical change. Since 1972, when that incident took place, that society has been at war.
Some people have argued that the answer to war is to strengthen the rule of law. I understand that point of view, but it has not worked—because enough people in Northern Ireland feel alienated from the law and from the Government. At last, with this agreement, we have managed to marginalise a large number of people who still believe in the bullet and the bomb. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was right to say that peace must be a precondition of any change. Admittedly there is still no peace; there are still what he called marginal elements who can kill. Some places are still unsafe and the marginal elements still have the capacity to murder people, but thanks to the agreement they no longer constitute a large minority: they are a shattered and fragmented rump.
I began by saying that I am unqualified to serve on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, although I do. I do however have one vital qualification: I have seen the future. There is in my constituency a church called St. Paul's, in Highfield. It is shared by Catholics and Anglicans. At 8.30 on Sunday mornings there is a

Protestant service conducted by a woman minister, and at 11 o'clock there is a Catholic mass. Such a thing is almost unheard of in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The idea that the two communities in Northern Ireland are at daggers drawn is erroneous. I have attended every sort of Catholic service, from nuptial mass to benediction, in almost every Catholic church in Belfast and in many churches in Rome—and I have no hang-ups at all.

Mr. McWalter: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I did not say that the communities were at daggers drawn. I said that a significant minority felt so alienated that they did not recognise what the hon. and learned Gentleman would call the rule of law. Of course, in my parish there are also a few people who do not respect the rule of law, but where such people form a significant minority the law has to be reconstructed so as to attract their assent.

Mr. Mallon: I was intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's experience with the toothpaste. It is true that we are different, but we are the product of our environment. We have been governed by this Parliament since the Act of Union of 1800. I suggest that that has something to do with our conditioning—that the diversity in the north of Ireland may stem partly from that.

Mr. McWalter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is extraordinary that a tube of toothpaste can be regarded as a venomous item over the water. I was unfazed by the incident, but I can imagine members of the minority community in Northern Ireland feeling threatened, intimidated and resentful in such circumstances. We in England are used to working constructively with the police authorities.
What we need to foster, following the agreement, is the spirit of St. Paul's church in Highfield. Its experience needs to be etched on the life of Northern Ireland. From now on no one, republican or Unionist, should regard it as strange to work with members of the other community in a spirit of mutual understanding and multicultural exchange.

Mr. Peter Robinson: There has at least been an acceptance by many who have spoken today that while the roots of the Bill can be found in the Belfast agreement, that agreement has been given significant support by the undertakings, promises and pledges offered by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
I recognise that 71 per cent. of those who voted in the referendum voted in favour of the agreement, but I do not accept the contention that that represents a majority of both our communities. It is clear that a majority of the Unionist community voted against the agreement—[Interruption.] The giggling hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) should take into account some simple statistics: 71 per cent. voted yes; according to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), 42 per cent. of those were nationalists but, accepting that perhaps 5 per cent. of the nationalist community voted no—although the exit polls did not show that to be the case—that would represent about 2 per cent. of the overall


community, thereby reducing the figure back down to 40 per cent.; about 8 per cent. of the votes in Northern Ireland come from what are described as others, such as the Alliance party, the Women's Coalition, Labour and other bits and pieces, which gives us 48 per cent.

Mr. Winnick: What a way to describe such groups.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman would never identify with Labour in Northern Ireland—it is an entirely different species there. That gives 48 per cent., leaving only 23 per cent. who voted yes from the Unionist community, as opposed to 29 per cent. who voted no from the Unionist community. Therefore, the clear majority of the Unionist community voted against the agreement.
The Government know that; their own polls show that that was the case. Indeed, those polls so alarmed them that they sent the Prime Minister post haste to Northern Ireland to do whatever he could to turn the tide of events. To that end, he gave a series of commitments which, in my view, are as crucial to the future of the Bill as is the agreement. People in Northern Ireland voted not simply on their reading of the Belfast agreement, but on the interpretation of that agreement given by the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister indicated clearly that there would be a direct linkage between actual decommissioning and any prisoners being released, people were prepared to believe it.
In the House, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister:
Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?
The Prime Minister replied:
It is essential that any agreement is signed up to in full."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
He said that the answer to the question was yes. He said a lot of other things, but he answered yes to the question, put directly to him by the Leader of the Opposition, which asked for decommissioning prior to any releases taking place. The Prime Minister made a further comment on 13 May:
Especially after the events at the weekend, it must be clear and demonstrated … that if people are to take their places on the Northern Ireland Executive and participate in the provisions on prisoner release, we must be sure that violence is given up for good. We must demonstrate that clearly."—[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 365.]
Neither of those pledges has been fulfilled in the Bill. There is no direct linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners, nor is there any requirement for decommissioning prior to prisoners being released. All the Bill says is that that is one of the issues that the Secretary of State will take into account, but she is not required to do so even if she finds out that decommissioning has not taken place. There is no requirement in the Bill for decommissioning to have been signed up to, or to have taken place, before prisoners start to be released.
There is no requirement for violence to have ended for good, even though the Bill talks about
a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.
Those are strange words to use because we had a complete ceasefire announced by the Provisional IRA. But it was broken by the Provisional IRA when it bombed Canary Wharf. A complete ceasefire is not a permanent end to

violence, nor does it mean giving up violence for good. That pledge is broken in the Bill—the Prime Minister did not live up to his words.
The Prime Minister came over to Northern Ireland campaigning and gave a further pledge, which was published in the Belfast News Letter of Thursday 14 May. He said
People need to know that if they are sitting down in the room of the executive of the Northern Ireland assembly with other people then they are not sitting there with the guns under the table, outside the door and all the rest of it. That can't happen and we must make it absolutely clear that that can't happen.
Why is it that we in Northern Ireland are not to see the settlement Bill before people go to the polls on 25 June? One would have thought it might be appropriate for that Bill to be published before 25 June so that we could see whether the Prime Minister was keeping his pledges. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to put right any impression that the people of Northern Ireland might have that the Prime Minister will welsh on those commitments, as he welshed on the commitments on decommissioning and the release of prisoners.
In his last bid, the Prime Minister made a dramatic statement and personally signed his five pledges to the people of Northern Ireland, which were displayed on a large billboard. The same pledge as previously was made on prison releases. Pledge No. 5 stated:
Prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good.
That is clearly a requirement for a permanent end to violence—not a tactical cessation of violence, not a pause in violence, not simply giving up violence for a few years, but giving up violence for good.
How is that to be demonstrated? The Prime Minister said in his Balmoral speech that it would be demonstrated by an end to punishment beatings and by standing down the organisation and dismantling it. Those are the key issues, along with decommissioning, that show that violence is being given up for good.
The Prime Minister did not keep his word to the people of Northern Ireland. The pledges are not kept in the Bill. If he broke those pledges, the people of Northern Ireland can be certain that the other four pledges that he signed in Coleraine are unlikely to be kept when the settlement Bill is eventually published.
I agree with the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh and for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that this Bill probably keeps to the lines of the agreement. It does not keep to the basis of the Prime Minister's pledges, but it is in line with the agreement, because the agreement, as we argued during the campaign, did not require decommissioning. It required only that certain individuals should use their best endeavours and influence to bring about decommissioning. The agreement made it clear that within two years, all the prisoners would get out.
One Labour Back Bencher made the remarkable statement that the Bill is not about letting murderers out on to the streets. What is it about then? Of course it is about letting murderers out on to the streets. That is its whole purpose. The Minister gave figures to journalists to show how many murderers would be allowed out on to the streets.
As soon as the Bill is passed, a contradiction in law will be created. I agree that there is no doubt that the Bill will be passed, given the size of the Labour majority.
Under one piece of legislation, the IRA and other terrorist organisations are proscribed, but when the Secretary of State is asked to make a determination under clause 3(8) on whether various organisations are terrorist organisations, she will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that the IRA is, for the purposes of the Bill, not a terrorist organisation.
So certain was I that the Secretary of State would come to that conclusion that I was prepared to stake my political career on it. After 19 years in the House, I made it clear that if the Secretary of State was prepared to come out publicly before last Monday and make a statement giving a clear undertaking that she would list the Provisional IRA as a terrorist organisation under that clause, I would be happy to withdraw. I thought that, offered such a carrot, the Secretary of State, keen to get rid of me, would jump at the opportunity, but she did not take it. I even made sure that she was aware of it by speaking to her private secretary, to ensure that she knew the great possibilities that lay before her.
The Secretary of State could not give such an undertaking publicly because she has no intention of determining that, for the purposes of the Bill, the Provisional IRA is a terrorist organisation. She will determine that it is not.
By doing that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be saying, "You can hold on to 100 tonnes of weapons and enough explosives and guns to carry on waging war for another 20 years, but I will not determine that you are a terrorist organisation." She will say, "You can have all the plans to wreck and ruin the Province, but I will not determine that you are a terrorist organisation. You can have a structure and a terrorist network throughout the Province, but I will not determine that you are a terrorist organisation." That is how Mad Hattered the Bill is. Even though the IRA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by an Act of Parliament, the Secretary of State has determined that it should not be included in a specified list of terrorist organisations. She will do the same to other terrorist organisations as well.
We also have the nonsense—emphasised by the Secretary of State in her remarks—that it is an offence to be a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation. An IRA man in the Maze prison can declare that he is a member of the Provisional IRA—which is a proscribed organisation—and the Secretary of State may release him from prison because she does not determine that that proscribed organisation should be included in the list of terrorist organisations. That man will be allowed on to the street even though he has admitted that he is a member of an organisation that everyone knows is a terrorist organisation and which is legally proscribed as such by an Act of Parliament. That is an absolute absurdity.
Other factors must be taken into account in terms of the prisoners. I do not think that it is sufficient to allow convicted prisoners to leave gaol if they have not repented or expressed regret for their crimes. Prisoners can get out of gaol without renouncing violence because they will get out on the basis of their organisation's status. However, when those people are out on licence, they will not be put back into prison on the basis of their organisation's status. If their organisation returns to violence, they will still be free because it is their individual behaviour that matters

to the Secretary of State and to the commission. That is entirely wrong and the provision must clearly be amended in Committee.
I do not believe that the Bill's criteria for determining a terrorist organisation are sufficient. Clearly, we must take account—we shall seek to amend the Bill to this effect—of the views of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who must believe that an organisation is no longer a threat to the people of Northern Ireland. Such a provision must be inserted into the Bill so that we can hear an independent and impartial view rather than the political views being expressed in the House tonight.
It is probably fairly obvious that I intend to vote against the Bill. I will do so on principle. I believe that sentences may be reduced by a very narrow margin in certain circumstances—on the ground of good behaviour, for example. The review bodies examine a series of factors, such as the likelihood of a prisoner reoffending, but that applies to only a small part of a sentence. The Bill introduces an amnesty in everything but name. The Government know it, and they think that, by calling it something else, they will fool the people. They will not. When the gates open, the prisoners will start to leave. Hundreds of prisoners will get out in that two-year period, and most of them will be murderers.
I shall vote against the Bill on principle. We accept the fact that the Government will pursue the Bill and that it will pass, but we shall seek to amend it in Committee. I know that the Government will not accept the substantial amendments that we shall propose, as they will be contrary to the Government's deal with Sinn Fein-IRA.
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, when the commission is established, in deciding its composition, she will not feel that it is necessary to telephone an on-the-run terrorist, such as Rita O'Hare, or a former leader of the Provisional IRA and Army Council member, such as Martin McGuinness, seeking their approval? When she establishes the commission, whose advice will the Secretary of State take on the issue of prisoner releases? Will she again have to secure the approval of Sinn Fein-IRA representatives?

Mr. William Thompson: It will be no surprise to the House when I say that I was opposed to the agreement and recommended the people of Northern Ireland to vote no in the referendum. As the Bill is a result of that agreement, it will come as no surprise that I am opposed to it.
For 25 years, we have had violence in Northern Ireland with terrorists at their work. We have seen murder and mayhem on many occasions. We have heard many announcements from Governments that they will defeat terrorism. They have said that the terrorists will not get what they want. However, the reality is that, because of American influence, European influence, southern Irish influence and influence from the civil servants in the Foreign Office and the Northern Ireland Office, the British Government never had the guts to beat terrorism.
If we do not beat terrorism, in the end we negotiate with the terrorists and appease them. The agreement that has been signed is not a peace agreement but an appeasement agreement. We can see the result of that in the Bill. It represents appeasement to terrorism. The


terrorists were there to make a deal, and their condition was that they had to get their prisoners out. That applied both to Sinn Fein and to the terrorists from the nationalist side as well as the terrorist organisations from the Unionist side. That was the price that they demanded for the agreement—or part of the price—and, so that the agreement could be reached, they got it. They wanted to get their prisoners out.
The Bill acknowledges something that has always been denied, which is that there were political prisoners in Northern Ireland. They may not have been called political prisoners—they may have been termed special status prisoners—but in reality they have been political prisoners. Men and women who have been involved in terrorism are now to be treated differently from every other criminal who is in prison in Northern Ireland. That is immoral and it discriminates against the ordinary criminal who has to do his full term in prison, even though the offences that he has committed may be much less than some of the terrorist crimes that have been committed by others.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the leader and deputy leader of his party have come to a very different conclusion from him about the negotiated agreement? Why has the majority of the governing part of his organisation also decided to back the agreement?

Mr. Thompson: I did not hear exactly all that the hon. Gentleman said, but I know that many parties accept the agreement. Indeed, my own party has accepted it. I accept that. I accept also that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have accepted it. However, that does not mean that I must accept it. I believe that it is wrong. As I believe that it is wrong, I therefore believe that I have the right to oppose it as it continues to come into development in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Winnick: I was really asking why the hon. Gentleman believes—of course, he has a perfect right to oppose the Bill in a free House of Commons—that the leader and deputy leader of his party, as well as the majority of the governing part of his organisation, take a very different view from him over the negotiated agreement.

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman asks a question to which I really do not know the answer. I ask him to ask those to whom he refers why they reached such a decision. It is certainly not one with which I agree.
The Bill is a betrayal of all the good men and women from the security forces who gave their lives in the pursuit of the defeat of terrorism. Many of them spent nights patrolling the roads trying to defend the ordinary people of Northern Ireland in order to defeat terrorism. They died in vain, because terrorism has not been defeated. Terrorism is succeeding still in Northern Ireland.
The so-called safeguards in the Bill are meaningless. Many people in Northern Ireland were persuaded to vote yes by the promises given by the Prime Minister when he came to Northern Ireland on three occasions. When they saw him on television, they took him at his word. I tried to persuade them that what he signed and said was meaningless, but they would not believe that. Now, in the Bill, we discover that what I believed has come true. The Prime Minister's promises have not been fulfilled in the Bill.
Time is of the essence, so I conclude by saying that this is a bad Bill. It is a sad day for the House of Commons when it considers a Bill to release murderers. Therefore, I shall oppose it.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I shall be brief and I apologise, therefore, if I cannot develop one or two of my arguments as much as I would have wished.
I was happy to support the agreement when it came before the House. Various things have been said about it in this debate, and I find myself as unable to agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) as I am with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter).
Ultimately, Northern Ireland is a civil society. It enjoys, in substantial areas, a great measure of peace, but we belittle the people of Northern Ireland if we attribute to them a state of wardom such that we have to extend or change the law to accommodate their circumstances. It is a bad precedent.
That having been said, the agreement implies on our part an act of hard-headed faith. I have never had any doubt in my mind that if violence comes to an end, that of itself is a good precondition for looking at the case of each individual convicted for an act of violence. If the violence has ceased, it is a good reason for releasing them as soon as possible. That would have applied whether or not the agreement had come into being.
Therefore, if we are approaching a situation where peace will come to Northern Ireland, there are sound reasons for looking to release prisoners as expeditiously as possible, as long as we do not release into the community those who will resume violence.
There are matters connected with the agreement which have given me cause for concern. Applying my mind as a lawyer, I read the agreement carefully and I concluded that what the Prime Minister had to say on 6 May about the linkage between the release of prisoners and the cessation of violence and decommissioning was, on a reading of the agreement, correct. I hope that it is, because I am concerned not about whether other parties to the agreement may come to a different interpretation but to know the Government's interpretation of the agreement.
Listening to the debate, there has been enough casuistry from supporters of the Government to suggest that there are those who read into the agreement some very different things from others about the linkage of decommissioning with the cessation of violence.
As I said earlier in an intervention, I have no doubt that the agreement can be construed—it is reflected in the legislation—as meaning that an act of preparation for violence would be the failure within the two-year period to achieve the substantial decommissioning that is envisaged in the agreement.
If that is not the case, the sooner the Government say so, the better. There is a tendency in circumstances of this kind to have a hope and a prayer, and sometimes to go beyond what is realistic. It is important that people know where they stand. Obfuscation may be a Government art form, but it will do us no good in this context. If the matter is not clarified now, it will be clarified later, with far worse consequences.
I am prepared to accept what the Prime Minister said, because it appears to be in accordance with the agreement, but I seek confirmation of that. The question of what amendments are tabled or become critical in Committee will depend on how the Government interpret the agreement to the House and on the assurances that can be given that what the Prime Minister said on the matter is correct. I believe that the agreement and the Bill match, and that the agreement was properly reflected by what the Prime Minister said, but I look forward to reassurance that that is indeed the case.
The issue with which I now wish to deal briefly may be slightly off the remit of the Bill, but it is important. I expect that, by the time the two-year period is up, there will be virtually no IRA prisoners in this country who have not been transferred either to Northern Ireland or to the Republic. I understand that the remit of the Bill concerns prisoners transferred to Northern Ireland, but the status of prisoners transferred to the Republic is a matter of abiding curiosity to me. Some of those prisoners have the unique and unpleasant distinction of being virtually the only ones subject to the full life tariff. Some were transferred on the Irish Government's explicit assurance that they accepted the full life tariff imposed by the Home Secretary.
Where do those prisoners fit into the agreement? If they do not fit into the Bill, into what agreement do they fit? I do not accept that they are merely the responsibility of the Government of the Irish Republic, because that Government's previous ability to release them has been fettered by their assurance of the full life tariff.
There are exceptions—properly made—in the Bill. I know from my experience of encountering terrorists in the courts that they come in all shapes and sizes—from the young romantic who has murdered, but who may properly wish to be released into the community quickly, to the psychopath who probably constitutes a danger to the community whether or not he is a member of a terrorist organisation, and who was drawn to terrorist organisations like a bee to a honey pot.
What measure of control will the Government exercise over influencing the release date of prisoners transferred to the Irish Republic, and how do such prisoners fit into the agreement? Even if the matter falls outside the remit of the Bill, I should be grateful for an explanation of how that will work.
I thank the House for allowing me the indulgence of exceeding the normal time for Back-Bench speeches in order that I might raise those matters.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I am more than happy to have given my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) five or six minutes for his excellent contribution to this debate.
I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) in thanking the Secretary of State and her Ministers for involving the Opposition and seeking our advice in the drafting of the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, some of our points have been incorporated, but the Bill still does not go far enough to satisfy our concerns and those of many people in Northern Ireland.

As my hon. Friend said, we shall submit amendments and force those to a vote in Committee unless we have further accommodation from the Government.
Contrary to the accusations of some Labour Members, we do not seek to rewrite the agreement; we merely seek to make clear in the Bill the intent and the terms of the agreement. That is no less an intent than the Prime Minister has sought to achieve in his various comments over the past few weeks.
I seek clarification from the Minister on two questions that were put to the Secretary of State by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. The first relates to the issue of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. We seek confirmation that the Bill does not apply in their case. Clause 3(3)(a) sets a first condition that the sentence must be for a qualifying offence. It seems to me that the offences committed by Guardsmen Fisher and Wright do not fulfil that condition. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that when he responds to the debate.
Clause 1(5) refers to a lawyer who holds a legal qualification in any jurisdiction. The issue raised was not dealt with fully. There is still some doubt, and we seek confirmation that the qualification should be from the United Kingdom.
I can say in response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) that we welcome the agreement and we acknowledge that it is a momentous event in the history of Northern Ireland. History will determine how momentous it is, but it is a key and significant step. We want further progress on the basis of that agreement. There is a glimmer of hope, and that was shown by the positive 71 per cent. vote in the referendum. However, that is conditional on good faith being exercised by all the participating parties. The commitments by the signatories to the agreement are clear cut and have repeatedly been endorsed and elaborated on by the Prime Minister himself.
It is the duty of the Opposition to challenge the wording of the legislation that interprets the intent of the agreement. There may well be differing views on the legal interpretation of words in the Bill. Is that not what the courts will be asked to determine? As a lawyer, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun should have understood that fundamental point.
There is no inconsistency in our position. We have made it clear in the House, in private meetings with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, and publicly in Northern Ireland and in mainland Britain that we seek a clear and unequivocal commitment to giving up violence for good, and that includes decommissioning. We believe that that commitment should also apply to the release of prisoners. After all, the Prime Minister has said no less. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in his powerful speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield alluded to many of the Prime Minister's comments in the past few weeks. In the limited time available to me, I do not intend to reiterate them. In the Prime Minister's various interviews and statements on 6 May, 14 May and 17 May in the House and in Northern Ireland, the word "decommissioning" occurred time and again. Furthermore, on every occasion he linked decommissioning to both prisoner release and the taking up of Executive positions in the assembly.
The Bill does not make those links in anything like the same clear and unequivocal way. That is the critical issue. The people of Northern Ireland were entitled to believe


what the Prime Minister said about those links when they voted yes to the agreement. The House is entitled to believe that the Prime Minister meant what he said under questioning from the Leader of the Opposition. The country as a whole is entitled to believe the Prime Minister when he promises to link legislation on prisoner release to the giving up of violence for good. The Prime Minister said that the
war is finished, done with, gone".
To ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland and in mainland Britain, it is inconceivable that an organisation that eschews violence and terrorism cannot co-operate fully and totally with the decommissioning process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised the issue of the prisoners transferred to the Republic of Ireland.
The intention of the agreement is clear from paragraph 1 of the section on prisoners, on page 25. I think that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) quoted from it twice. It states:
Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners).
Clause 15 of the Bill deals with sentences passed outside Northern Ireland—that is, in mainland Great Britain. Subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State power to provide for clauses 3 to 13 to take effect, if the prisoner concerned meets the four conditions specified in clause 3(3) to (6).
It strikes me that, if the likes of Paul Magee and the Balcombe street gang had stayed in prisons in the United Kingdom—as provided for in clause 15—they would have been subject to this legislation. The fact that they have been transferred to the Republic of Ireland under a separate jurisdiction does create a slight problem, but, given the intent in the paragraph in the agreement on the release of prisoners, I do not think that they can be seen to have prejudiced their case by moving from prisons here to prisons in the Republic. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point for once and for all.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said—and I think that his comments were echoed by the hon. Member for Hull, North—that there was no question of introducing new elements into the agreement, and, by inference, into the Bill. He implied that no embellishment would be countenanced—particularly to clause 3(8) and (9), the subsections which are at the heart of the Bill. Indeed, he challenged both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to come to the Floor of the House and say why the legislation was to be changed from the word and the spirit of the agreement.
I presume from those comments that the hon. Gentleman is content with the words in the Bill as drafted. I also presume that he was consulted about those words before the Bill was drafted. That is not a problem. Consultation was widespread, and many parties were included: I have already accepted that. It is, however, unusual for the first draft of a Bill, as it appears on Second Reading, to be perfect. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not entertain the view that other word

sand combinations of words could strengthen the legislation in a way that we would like, while still not going beyond the terms of the agreement.
I shall give the Minister plenty of time in which to speak, as I know that he has many questions to answer. I have raised some of the key issues, principally those arising in clause 3(8) and (9). We shall be tabling amendments to those key provisions. We hope that the spirit of co-operation that the Government have shown hitherto will continue when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage next week.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate about an issue that generates strong emotions. In the time available, I shall do my best to deal with all the points that have been raised, although it may not be possible for me to do so. It will certainly be possible to discuss the details of many of the points raised this evening in Committee.
There have been many difficult and dark days in the troubled history of Northern Ireland, but 10 April and 22 May stand out like beacons. On those days a new light shone on the Province, a ray of hope and the glimmer of a better tomorrow. The Good Friday agreement and the referendum which endorsed it so convincingly are without doubt significant turning points in the history of Northern Ireland. Those two events are the opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to move forward into a future that is no longer plagued by violence and blighted by fear.
All hon. Members have an obligation to listen to what the people of Northern Ireland have said. They are the people who have been living with the troubles all these years and who have been most damaged by them. They are saying that they want a better future for themselves and their families.
When the participants to the talks signed the agreement on Good Friday, they knew that hard decisions lay ahead and that difficult actions would be required. Equally, when the people of Northern Ireland overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum, they did so knowing that they would have to accept decisions and developments that had previously been anathema to them. The talks participants and the people of Northern Ireland endorsed the Good Friday agreement knowing that it was a total package that would stand or fall as a whole.
The legislation deals with one of the first of the important matters on which the agreement can either founder or move ahead. The Government have made no secret of the fact that the prisoner element of the agreement was not easy for us. We share the concerns of many people about the early release of prisoners. However, it is time for all those who have suffered hurt over the past 30 years to take a deep breath and say that, although this is not necessarily a perfect end to the troubles, realistically it is the only one.
I shall now deal with the issue of victims. During my time in Northern Ireland I have constantly been amazed at the capacity of so many of those who have suffered gravely over the years, whether from the discriminate bombings and shootings of republican terrorists or from the evil sectarian murders by so-called loyalists, to forgive and to look ahead. Without that, politicians would not have been given the time and space in which to forge a better future.
In my role as Minister for victims, I am particularly conscious of the Bill's possible impact on victims and their families. I understand the hurt and the fears of many of those people, and I understand the need to ensure that their concerns and interests are properly addressed. In that context, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who also spoke about victims, for their comments. They both pertinently drew attention to the need to ensure that victims who want the information can find out when particular offenders will be released. Lord Alderdice and the Alliance party have shown a particular interest in the issue and have made similar suggestions and representations on behalf of victims. In Committee next week, I shall be happy to consider further questions on the issue with a view to tabling a Government amendment to tackle it.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked how the Republic of Ireland would deal with victims. That is a matter for the Government of the Republic. They have also appointed a Minister with responsibility for dealing with victims of terrorism over the years in the Republic, and I am due to meet him shortly to discuss what we can jointly do. Legislation and how to deal specifically with such issues are matters for that Government.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke about the sensitivity of victims and about informing them. We shall have to deal with Victim Support and other such groups to ensure that information will be offered sympathetically. The overriding principle is that it will be for victims to decide whether they want to receive information. We shall be establishing a procedure whereby victims may identify themselves if they wish information to be brought forward, so that they can ease some of the pain that they may feel about prisoner releases as the releases begin to progress over the coming months and years.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is not present, said that we were only now beginning to think about the issue of victims. Just about everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman says is wrong. He is wrong again on the issue of victims. It is not true that victims have been ignored by this or by previous Governments. Over the years, considerable sums of money have been routed towards groups that have sought to assist victims. Since this Government took office, we have established a commission specifically to consider the issue. It has reported recently; a Minister responsible for victims has been appointed; and we are making great progress. It is wrong to say that we have ignored victims over the years; that is simply not so.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked whether the Secretary of State would consult the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding on whether a ceasefire was being maintained. The answer to that is yes. It is clear that they are both key players in understanding the effect of what is taking place on the ground. Of course, at present, both the Secretary of State and I are constantly in touch with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding in assessing security matters on a week-by-week basis.
I turn to the safeguards in the Bill. Although we owe it to victims and to the people of Northern Ireland to address fears about release, we must obviously take account of how we go about it. The Bill builds in the major safeguards which were envisaged at the conclusion of Good Friday agreement and which the Prime Minister has promised since.
The gates of the Maze prison are not being flung open and prisoners will not be granted an amnesty for their criminal actions. The safeguards will ensure that prisoners who support terrorist groups that continue to engage in violence or return to violence will not be released. Prisoners who will be released on licence will be recalled if they engage in terrorist activities after release. Safeguards also ensure that the programme of release can be stopped if circumstances change. That means that, if a terrorist group returns to violence, prisoners who support the organisation will not be released, and those who continue to support it while on licence can be recalled. Another important safeguard is that life sentence prisoners will not be released if they are a danger to the public. Those are very important criteria and will be rigidly applied.
I turn to the Prime Minister's pledges. The message that the Prime Minister gave is very clear, and was confirmed in his statement to the people of Northern Ireland on 14 May. He said that, if parties are to benefit from accelerated release, their commitment to democratic, non-violent means must be established in an objective, meaningful and verifiable way. He said that a range of factors were to be taken into account in clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement have been met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the following factors in her introductory statement, and they are now included in the Bill. They are whether an organisation is committed to the use now and in future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives; has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or preparation for violence; is not directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations; and is co-operating fully with the decommissioning body.
Since we are judging what assurances have been given, it is worth looking at what has happened. It is worth underlining that prisoners have been released throughout the troubles. They include almost 450 life sentence prisoners who were released through the life sentence release mechanisms set up by the Conservative Government in 1983. Only two of them have been recalled as a result of further serious terrorist-type offences. Those prisoners include also more than 245 fixed-sentence prisoners released early under legislation introduced by the Conservative Government as recently as 1995. Only two of those prisoners have had their licence revoked.
The 1995 legislation was introduced during a period in which both loyalists and the Provisional IRA had ceasefires in place, and continued in force even when the PIRA ceasefire broke down, with the horrific docklands bombing. Although the previous Government had power to suspend by order that legislation, they chose not to do so. In many respects, we are today considering building on that Conservative legislation.
The new scheme will lead to earlier release and will for the first time involve life sentence prisoners. However, the changes are balanced by safeguards that were absent from the 1995 legislation. Specifically, we will be able to penalise organisations that do not maintain ceasefires and to prevent release of prisoners, especially life sentence prisoners, who will be a risk to the public.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister make it clear whether IRA prisoners can be released regardless of whether there is decommissioning?

Mr. Ingram: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, one of the factors that has to be taken into account—it is one of the four factors—is commitment by those organisations to be engaged fully in that process. That factor is quite clear both from what the Prime Minister has said and in the legislation.
I tell the right hon. Member for Strangford that every hon. Member wants an end to paramilitary weapons. We all want decommissioning. The Government have initiated legislation to achieve that end. In the next few weeks, we will be signing the scheme to put into effect the means to achieve it. However, ultimately, the mechanism that those organisations would apply in decommissioning is voluntary. It is the organisations that will have to comply with the factors and produce the weapons. We do not have mechanisms to take weapons from organisations unless they co-operate with the schemes, which will be signed up to within the next few weeks.
I shall deal now with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), which were raised again by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).

Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: No; I should like now to deal specifically with the transfer of prisoners, as I am very conscious of the time.

Mr. MacKay: On decommissioning, and in response to the Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), may I ask whether the Minister agrees with the Prime Minister's statement on the Floor of the House that
It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that"?
If decommissioning is part of release, surely the Minister will agree that it must be a prerequisite—rather than the Secretary of State or her successors merely saying that they will take it into account. If the Minister can give us that confirmation today, I think that we will have very few problems with the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Ingram: Of course I agree with the Prime Minister. However, let me quote the Prime Minister's exact comments, which have been quoted selectively. In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:
Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence.
We all agree with that. He continued:
Decommissioning is part of that, of course, but it goes further. It is not just a question of decommissioning, but a question of making sure, as the agreement says, that there is a complete and

unequivocal ceasefire. What is more, there is provision in the agreement for that to be kept under constant review."— [Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
So what the Prime Minister said—

Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: No.
What the Prime Minister said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am answering the point. The Prime Minister's comments went further than the assurance now sought by the hon. Member for Bracknell. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman now finds it within himself to judge that he can support the legislation.

Mr. MacKay: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has quoted the passage in full—it was purely because of the time that I did not—because I agree with the rest of what the Prime Minister said. Any reasonable person who looks at what he said—a lot of reasonable people in the Province looked at it and decided in the end to vote yes during the referendum campaign—would judge that decommissioning had to take place before prisoners were released. That is absolute fact. If that is not conceded in the legislation, the people of Northern Ireland will have been ratted upon.

Mr. Ingram: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is being so offensive about the Prime Minister, who made such a—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that we should always use temperate language in the House.

Mr. MacKay: I will withdraw the words "ratted upon" and say misled.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is merely finding another way of being offensive. Clearly, that has been the whole import of what he has been saying. We have a bipartisan approach and we are trying to move forward. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that the Prime Minister has misled the House and the people of Northern Ireland, while at the same time saying that he welcomes the agreement and recognises the major contribution that the Prime Minister made in bringing it about and getting that tremendous vote on 22 May. Can the hon. Gentleman get his act together? Can he begin to think clearly whether he wants to compliment the Prime Minister or to insult him?

Mr. MacKay: I am not saying that the Prime Minister misled the House, if the legislation is corrected. I am assuming that the Prime Minister acted in good faith and was saying what would be in the legislation; but it is not in the legislation, and unless the legislation is amended, people will assume that the right hon. Gentleman has misled the House. I am asking the Minister to ensure that that provision is in the legislation—then there will be no problems whatever.

Mr. Ingram: Perhaps I should have taken longer for my winding-up speech, if that had been permitted; because of those interventions, I will not now have time to cover all the points made.
I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell about the Prime Minister's assurances and what is reflected in the legislation. Clause 3(9), which must of course be considered with all the other factors that have to come into play, states:
In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation—

(a) is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives;
(b) has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence;
(c) is directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations;
(d) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997."
Those are four clear factors, which the Secretary of State will take into account and which are wholly consistent with what the Prime Minister said in the House and to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that when the hon. Member for Bracknell leaves the Chamber he will reflect on those—he probably will not correct his thoughts at this point in time. He has complimented the Prime Minister in the past and he should compliment him again for ensuring that those factors are in the legislation. They are important and they will have to be taken into account.
The transfer of prisoners from England—not from the mainland as the hon. Member for Bracknell said—to the Republic of Ireland is another critical area that has been mentioned. Repatriation of such prisoners was agreed on the basis that the Republic would continue to enforce their sentences. The hon. Gentleman and others referred to a particular prisoner, Magee, who would normally expect to serve a period similar to that which he could have expected to serve in England.
Under the Belfast agreement, both Governments agreed to introduce mechanisms for the early release of prisoners—the agreement that the hon. Gentleman says he supports. The sentences of those prisoners repatriated to the Republic of Ireland may therefore be reviewed under the terms of the agreement. That is a clear reading of the agreement. It cannot be interpreted in any other way. It is a matter for the Republic of Ireland how it implements its aspect of the agreement, in the same way as it is a matter for the House how we implement ours. My understanding is that legislation will not be required in the Republic, but that is a matter for its jurisdiction.
Many other points need to be dealt with, and I am sure that we will do that in Committee.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 10.

Division No. 299]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Arbuthnot, James


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Charlotte


Allan, Richard
Baker, Norman


Allen, Graham
Ballard, Jackie


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Battle, John





Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Drew, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Edwards, Huw


Berry, Roger
Efford, Clive


Betts, Clive
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Ennis, Jeff


Blizzard, Bob
Etherington, Bill


Boateng, Paul
Evans, Nigel


Borrow, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Boswell, Tim
Fisher, Mark


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flint, Caroline


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Browne, Desmond
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burgon, Colin
Fox, Dr Liam


Burnett, John
Fyfe, Maria


Burns, Simon
Gapes, Mike


Butler, Mrs Christine
Garnier, Edward


Byers, Stephen
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chope, Christopher
Gorrie, Donald


Clappison, James
Grant, Bernie


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Green, Damian


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Greenway, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Dominic



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clwyd, Ann
Grogan, John


Coaker, Vernon
Gunnell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hague, Rt Hon William


Cohen, Harry
Hain, Peter


Collins, Tim
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Colman, Tony
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Corbett, Robin
Hammond, Philip


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hanson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Harris, Dr Evan


Cotter, Brian
Hayes, John


Cox, Tom
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cran, James
Heald, Oliver


Crausby, David
Healey, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Heppell, John


Cummings, John
Hesford, Stephen


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoey, Kate


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Dalyell, Tam
Home Robertson, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hoon, Geoffrey


Darvill, Keith
Hope, Phil


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Davidson, Ian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Hutton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dawson, Hilton
Illsley, Eric


Dean, Mrs Janet
Ingram, Adam


Denharm, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dismore, Andrew
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jamieson, David


Doran, Frank
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jenkins, Brian






Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mudie, George


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Nicholls, Patrick


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Olner, Bill


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Paice, James


Kemp, Fraser
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pearson, Ian


Key, Robert
Perham, Ms Linda


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pickthall, Colin


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pike, Peter L


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Plaskitt, James


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Pond, Chris


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Primarolo, Dawn


Lansley, Andrew
Prosser, Gwyn


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Purchase, Ken


Laxton, Bob



Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher



Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)



Lewis, Terry (Worsley)



Liddell, Mrs Helen



Lidington, David



Livingstone, Ken



Llwyd, Elfyn



Love, Andrew



Luff, Peter



McAllion, John



McAvoy, Thomas



McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)



McDonagh, Siobhain



McDonnell, John



McFall, John



McGrady, Eddie



McGuire, Mrs Anne



McIsaac, Shona



MacKay, Andrew



Mackinlay, Andrew



McLoughlin, Patrick



McNamara, Kevin



McNulty, Tony



McWalter, Tony



McWilliam, John



Madel, Sir David



Mahon, Mrs Alice



Mallaber, Judy



Mallon, Seamus



Mandelson, Peter



Maples, John



Marek, Dr John



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Maude, Rt Hon Francis



Maxton, John



May, Mrs Theresa



Meacher, Rt Hon Michael



Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian



Michael, Alun



Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)



Milburn, Alan



Mitchell, Austin



Moffatt, Laura



Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)



Morley, Elliot



Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Moss, Malcolm



Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie






Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Quinn, Lawrie
Stringer, Graham


Rammell, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Redwood, Rt Hon John



Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rogers, Allan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rooker, Jeff
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rooney, Terry
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Ruane, Chris
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Trend, Michael


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Savidge, Malcolm
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sedgemore, Brian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Shaw, Jonathan
Ward, Ms Claire


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watts, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whittingdale, John


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Singh, Marsha
Willetts, David


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Willis, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Wise, Audrey


Snape, Peter
Wood, Mike


Soley, Clive
Woolas, Phil


Southworth, Ms Helen
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wyatt, Derek


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Ms Rachel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stevenson, George



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Janet Anderson and Mr. Greg Pope.


Stoate, Dr Howard





NOES


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Thompson, William


Flight, Howard
Trimble, Rt Hon David


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paisley, Rev Ian



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. John D. Taylor and Rev. Martin Smyth.


Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (SENTENCES) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),


That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Grantham Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful for the opportunity to take up in the House a matter of vital importance to my constituents. Grantham hospital is a successful general hospital with a wide range of activities, including obstetrics and gynaecology, which are presided over by three consultants. The hospital has benefited a great deal from expansion and investment over the past 20 years of Conservative government—the last party political point I will make this evening.
Grantham hospital has depended for its maternity and obstetric service on paediatric support delivered, on contract, from Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham. That support includes the necessary neonatal cover to enable obstetricians to practise in the full confidence that they will be able to resuscitate when necessary and deal with difficult cases.
All that has now been put at risk. I have it at first hand from Queens Medical Centre that it would have been perfectly happy to continue with its contract, but that contract conflicted with the ambition of Lincolnshire Health to set up an ambulatory paediatric system throughout Lincolnshire, to be based at Lincoln county hospital. It was to be made answerable to consultants based in Lincoln and Boston, and the expectation was that in-patient paediatric cases would be referred to Lincoln county hospital; so Lincolnshire Health made it plain to Queens that it could no longer expect to supply in-patient and out-patient paediatric services. Queens Medical Centre therefore gave notice that it could not continue to provide the necessary neonatal cover. There is thus the prospect of an end to all maternity services and all deliveries in Grantham hospital.
I emphasise this history because it is important to appreciate that, if there is a crisis, it has been created by Lincolnshire Health. If we are seeking solutions, they are solutions to problems gratuitously caused by Lincolnshire Health.
At the end of last year, Lincolnshire Health produced a draft consultation document setting out one preferred option and three others that were dismissed in the same document. The community health council rightly objected to that method of proceeding; I am delighted to acknowledge that the Government shared the council's view. Lincolnshire Health was ordered to produce a genuinely open consultation document, to ensure that the options were considered dispassionately and professionally. Lincolnshire Health was also required to give a commitment to conduct a survey of opinion among women in the area covered by Grantham hospital.
It is my contention—I have no doubt that that contention will be 100 per cent. vindicated by the document discovery process that will be launched when we have a judicial review, which I trust we will now have, given that the community health council has requested one—that, first, the survey that was carried out has been blatantly ignored by Lincolnshire Health and simply thrown into the wastepaper basket; and, secondly, far from carrying out the genuine consultation exercise promised by Lincolnshire Health, the whole process has


been made a mockery. On both commitments—to have a survey to take account of local opinion and to carry out a proper consultation process—Lincolnshire Health has acted in bad faith and has deceived both the Government and the public.
Since February, the survey has been undertaken, and 95 per cent. of respondents expressed their wish that the status quo should continue. The overwhelming majority of those who were asked what they would like to happen if the status quo could not continue chose option 3, which is the availability in Grantham hospital of maternity services under midwife supervision. However, Lincolnshire Health continues to be committed absolutely to option 2, which is the abolition of all maternity services in Grantham hospital, so that no deliveries could take place there.
Another event that has taken place since February is that, as a result of discussions between Grantham hospital and Leicester royal infirmary an agreement has been reached in principle under which Leicester royal infirmary would be prepared to supply the consultant cover that Queens Medical Centre is now reluctantly withdrawing. That would enable a proper consultant-led neonatal facility to be re-established in Grantham hospital and so enable a full range of obstetric and gynaecological services to continue there. I quote a letter, dated 21 April 1998, from the acting chief executive of Leicester royal infirmary, David Sissling, who writes:
We would be very interested in working in partnership with Grantham and District hospital in respect of obstetric services.
Notwithstanding the results of the survey, the commitment from Leicester royal infirmary, or the undertakings publicly given by Lincolnshire Health at the beginning of the year, a meeting of the health authority was held on 28 May in Sleaford—not in Grantham, whose population has a particular interest, although Sleaford people use Grantham's maternity services as well; incidentally, I am delighted to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in the Chamber this evening. I was present in the audience throughout the period in which the public were admitted to the meeting, but I have never in my life seen such a mockery made of a meeting of a publicly accountable authority.
The executive of Lincolnshire Health who made the presentation focused entirely on option 2, which would remove all possibility of any deliveries taking place in Grantham hospital; she almost entirely ignored the other options, except to dismiss them, and said nothing whatever about the offer from Leicester royal infirmary.

Mr. John Hayes: It has to be said that holding a shambles of a public meeting was the pattern established throughout Lincolnshire and in every town in Lincolnshire during the consultation on the reorganisation.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose comment reinforces the serious concern that we in Lincolnshire all feel about the conduct of our health authority in recent times.
To return to the meeting of 28 May, what was even more surprising than the fact that the executive charged with giving the board an objective assessment of the merits and demerits of each proposal should have

concentrated on only one proposal was that, when the non-executive members of the board expressed their view that they were inclined to go for option 3—the midwife option—the Lincolnshire Health executive told them that it was too late, because the decision had already been taken and, even more scandalous, public money had already been expended on building and construction work at Lincoln county hospital on the assumption that option 2 would be selected. A complete mockery was made of the procedures. It is an extremely serious state of affairs, not merely for Lincolnshire, but for the country as a whole, that a public authority should conduct itself in such a fashion.
The closing of maternity facilities in Grantham hospital will be an unmitigated disaster for mothers, families and prospective mothers in Grantham and the surrounding villages, Sleaford, Newark and the other towns—about 100,000 people in all, who have been so well looked after by Grantham hospital over the years. It would mean an hour's travel on bad roads to get to a hospital where a delivery could take place.
It is all too easy to foresee the perils and tragedies that could ensue. There is the danger of babies being delivered in ambulances or passenger motor cars—as the Minister knows, most women are driven privately to hospital when they have babies, rather than transported in ambulances. There is the danger of mothers suffering haemorrhages and dying in a car or an ambulance on the way to one of the general hospitals an hour away. That is an appalling prospect, and a hideous responsibility would descend on the shoulders of anyone who connived at or accepted such a proposal.
There are other considerations of less enormous human significance, but nevertheless important ones. As we all know, mothers who are about to deliver often have premature symptoms. If the hospital is close to their home, they can be sent home and told to come back the next day if symptoms continue, or to return later. If they live an hour away on a bad road, they will presumably have to be kept in hospital overnight, and possibly for one or two nights before they deliver.
National health beds will thereby be occupied unnecessarily and expensively, and there will be considerable disruption to the families concerned. In its decision, Lincolnshire Health has taken no account of such incremental national health costs, or of the incremental ambulance costs that will be caused by the proposals.
A further consequence of the decision will be to weaken Grantham hospital, and perhaps fatally to emasculate it. If not only obstetrics but gynaecology are withdrawn, that may undermine the viability of the accident and emergency department, because no gynaecological facilities will be available as a back-up. If we lost accident and emergency, apart from the obvious danger to people's health and lives, it would be impossible for us to retain critical care beds in Grantham. If we had no critical care beds, I doubt whether surgeons would be prepared to undertake major or abdominal surgery in Grantham hospital.
By an inexorable clinical logic, that scenario leads to the closure of Grantham as a general hospital. There is a corresponding financial logic that leads in the same direction. We all know that hospitals have a high operational gearing and that fixed costs are a high


proportion of total costs. If some facilities are withdrawn—Lincolnshire Health proposes to withdraw at a stroke paediatrics, gynaecology and obstetrics—that undermines the financial viability of what remains. Again, the path leads inexorably to the closure of Grantham as a general hospital.
The lives and health of mothers and potentially of babies are at stake. Also at stake is the confidence of the British people in the integrity of our institutions and the procedures that have been established for taking public decisions of this kind. The conduct of Lincolnshire Health over the past few weeks is an affront to every principle of sound administrative procedure, and to every principle on which a public authority should be based. It makes a mockery of the concept of fiduciary responsibility, on which health authorities were originally established.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I know that the House wishes to hear the Government's response, so I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on securing this Adjournment debate and I endorse everything that he said. My constituents who use Grantham hospital view the proposals of Lincolnshire Health with great concern. They believe—as do many hon. Members and I—that it is important that Grantham hospital retains a consultant-led paediatric and obstetric service. Lincolnshire Health's proposals do not make provision for that and, accordingly, they are objectionable.
I know that the community health council is making a formal legal objection, so the matter will come before the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for the ultimate decision. The hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) and I have met the Secretary of State to discuss the matter and we shall continue to press him. We believe that he should rule that Lincolnshire Health's proposals are unacceptable and should be rejected. He should insist on the retention of Grantham hospital as a fully fledged district general hospital, preserving, in particular, a consultant-led paediatric and obstetric service.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: I do not think that there is any disagreement between the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and myself. Many women in my constituency go to Grantham and District hospital to have their babies. A maternity unit at Newark closed in the 1980s, and the women of my constituency were assured that they could have their babies at Grantham hospital, which involves a journey of 15 minutes. The closure of Grantham hospital will distance the health service from my constituents and it will mean that women must travel for almost an hour to either the Lincoln county hospital or to hospitals in Nottingham to have their babies. I have had babies in recent years, and I believe that that is totally unacceptable. People should be able to access local hospitals that are situated within a reasonable distance.
I am unhappy about Lincolnshire Health's proposals. They assume that, if Grantham and District hospital cannot deliver babies utilising a consultant-led service, all

women will go to the hospital at Lincoln. That logic is fundamentally flawed because many women will opt to go to hospitals in Nottingham. Therefore, Lincolnshire Health will lose many clients—if that is the current terminology.
I am also extremely unhappy about the position adopted by the royal college. The Lincolnshire Health review is about finance, but the closure of maternity services at Grantham hospital is more about the position of the Royal College of Paediatricians. I accept entirely that paediatrics is a shrinking service, but I do not accept that, because members of the Royal College of Paediatricians find it inconvenient to train at a smaller hospital such as Grantham, my constituents must distance themselves from a service that they need. The Government must consider that issue: the Royal College of Paediatricians has decided that it does not want to train its paediatricians at local hospitals, so we cannot have consultant-led units at smaller hospitals and women cannot have their babies at local hospitals in rural areas. That is totally unacceptable.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on securing an Adjournment debate on Grantham and District hospital. My ministerial colleagues and I are well aware of the concerns that exist locally about the current and future level of health services provided by the hospital.
The hon. Gentleman has made known his concerns about Lincolnshire Health's proposals for Grantham hospital through meetings and correspondence with Ministers, as he has said. I acknowledge his efforts and those of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones), in bringing together key local people in a constructive attempt to resolve the concerns about the level of services provided at Grantham and District hospital.
I am aware that the key issue that has prompted the hon. Gentleman to call for this debate is the decision taken by Lincolnshire Health at the end of May, in line with its consultation document, that with effect from 1 August Grantham and District hospital should provide only antenatal and post-natal out-patient care and day-care gynaecology, with consultant and midwife care being provided by other hospitals.
I know that this has caused concern in the Grantham area, and that that concern has been expressed specifically by the South Lincolnshire community health council. I am also aware that the Royal College of Midwives has criticised the consultation process that Lincolnshire Health has followed. I shall return to the consultation process later. The health authority wishes to keep discussion open following this decision. The door is not closed. I reiterate, the door is not closed.
I shall say a little about Grantham and District hospital before moving on to the health authority's current proposals and maternity services in general.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The Minister says that the door is not closed, but Lincolnshire Health took a formal decision on 28 May. The community health council, equally formally, has objected to it. The door is indeed not closed; it is open to Ministers to reverse the decision taken by the health authority and to introduce some sanity


into the provision of health care in south Lincolnshire. I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will live up to those important responsibilities.

Ms Jowell: I am well aware of the stage that decisions have reached. I am aware also that further options are still being considered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of his great concern about the issue, will make his contribution to the continuing discussions with the health authority.
I shall say a little about Grantham and District hospital before going on to the health authority's current proposals and maternity services in general. Sadly, for most people outside the local area, Grantham and District hospital will always be associated with the evil actions of Beverly Allitt during 1991. Locally, the hospital is held in high regard. It is a real testament to the comment, dedication and professionalism of the hospital's staff that that is the case. This is illustrated by the concern shown about Lincolnshire Health's proposals to change the services provided at the hospital, obstetrics and gynaecology being the matter of the debate. Concern has been shown locally in the press and in correspondence and representations to Ministers.
After the dreadful events of the Allitt case, paediatric services at Grantham were provided on a satellite basis by the Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham. Last year, the Queens Medical Centre made it known to Lincolnshire Health that it intended to withdraw from providing in-patient paediatric services because of concerns about clinical safety.
That decision was based on clinical isssues. Difficulties in recruiting consultant paediatricians to run the service were being experienced. That meant that standards of support for junior doctor training were not being met. The effectiveness of the service depends on the clinical skills of staff and on the trust's ability to recruit staff of the highest calibre. It also depends on a sufficient number of patients and variety of cases to allow staff to maintain and develop their skills. Those were all issues which could not be solved in relation to paediatric services at Grantham.
I understand, via public consultation, that the public and the CHC supported the health authority's decision to provide the majority of children's services from within Lincolnshire with an ambulatory service at Grantham hospital. The clinical implications of that development and its consequences for the obstetric and gynaecology

services are clear. Without 24-hour paediatric cover seven days a week, the safe delivery of high-risk babies is unsustainable and clinically unsafe.
I fully understand that any proposal to change the services in a hospital causes concern. In this case, it is important to understand that the proposals are being made on grounds of clinical safety and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark made clear, not on grounds of finance.

Mrs. Fiona Jones: It is important to define a high-risk birth. A first birth is a high-risk birth. Therefore, any woman in my area who is having her first baby could not use a unit that is not consultant led.

Ms Jowell: A high-risk birth is determined clinically and defined within clinical guidelines. I agree with the point behind my hon. Friend's intervention. The circumstances of hospitals that serve rural communities are an important issue in relation to this set of decisions. It is important that hospitals in rural areas can meet tests of accessibility, clinical safety and the confidence of the communities that they serve. Scattered rural communities present different issues compared with densely populated urban centres.
As time is short, I reassure the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, and other hon. Members who have shown so much concern about the issue, that the decision-making process is continuing. The need for safe, clinically effective and efficient services throughout the county must underpin the review of services in Lincolnshire. Those factors will be of paramount importance in making decisions about obstetric and gynaecology services in Grantham.
Significant investment has been made by the health authority in paramedic obstetric training, with 36 staff receiving additional training in the last year to accommodate the needs of a service which is divided between two or more hospitals. That is an essential part of developing support for high-risk delivery.
As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the CHC is seeking judicial review. I hope that it will not pursue that course, and that it will be possible to resolve the matter locally. I reiterate that the decision-making process is still open. If the matter cannot be resolved locally, the decision will fall to Ministers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.